Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Receiving MPI messages of unknown size
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-04 11:46:48

A few points in addition to what has already been said:

1. You can always post a receive for size N when the actual message is
<=N. You can use this fact to pre-post a receive with size N, where N
is large enough for the header and a medium-sized message. If you
have a short message, it'll fit entirely within N and you're good.
If the message size is greater than N, you can still send the first
"eager" part of the message with the header, and then send a second
message with the remaining (size-N) after that. So for short/medium
messages, you'll still accomplish the transfer in 1 network message,
but long messages will effectively require 2. And for long messages,
you're already taking a long time to transmit the message, so adding
the overhead of a 2nd MPI message is negligible compared to the
overall time.

Note that this is pretty much what most MPI's do under the covers,
anyway (including Open MPI).

2. There is a dormant-but-will-be-resurrected proposal in front of the
MPI-3 Forum right now to do exactly what you want: "MPI receive and
allocate a buffer big enough for however big the incoming message
is." But even if that proposal passes, it'll likely be a while before
it shows up in MPI implementations. :-\

On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Neil Ludban wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:14:16 +1000
> > From: Lars Andersson <larsand_at_[hidden]>
> > Subject: [OMPI users] Receiving MPI messages of unknown size
> > To: users_at_[hidden]
> >
> > When using blocking message passing, I have simply solved the
> problem
> > by first sending a small, fixed size header containing the size of
> > rest of the data, sent in the following mpi message. When using
> > non-blocking message passing, this doesn't seem to be such a good
> > idea, since we cant post the main data transfer until we have
> received
> > the message header... It seems to take away most of the advantages
> on
> > non-blocking io in the first place.
> If enough messages are small enough, a medium sized message with
> fixed header and variable data eliminates most of the second message
> overhead.
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]

Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems