Hi all,
Ralph informs me that significant functionality has been removed from
ORTE in 1.3. Unfortunately this functionality was being used by PTP to
provide support for OMPI, and without it, it seems unlikely that PTP
will be able to work with 1.3. Apparently restoring this lost
functionality is an "enhancement" of 1.3, and so is something that
will not necessarily be done. Having worked with OMPI from a very
early stage to ensure that we were able to provide robust support, I
must say it is a bit disappointing that this approach is being taken.
I hope that the community will view this "enhancement" as worthwhile.
Regards,
Greg
Begin forwarded message:
On 2/29/08 7:13 AM, "Gregory R Watson" <g...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ralph Castain <r...@lanl.gov> wrote on 02/29/2008 12:18:39 AM:
>
>> Ralph Castain <r...@lanl.gov>
>> 02/29/08 12:18 AM
>>
>> To
>>
>> Gregory R Watson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>>
>> cc
>>
>> Subject
>>
>> Re: OpenMPI changes
>>
>> Hi Greg
>>
>> All of the prior options (and some new ones) for spawning a job
are fully
>> supported in the new interface. Instead of setting them with
"attributes",
>> you create an orte_job_t object and just fill them in. This is
precisely how
>> mpirun does it - you can look at that code if you want an
example, though it
>> is somewhat complex. Alternatively, you can look at the way it is
done for
>> comm_spawn, which may be more analogous to your situation - that
code is in
>> ompi/mca/dpm/orte.
>>
>> All the tools library does is communicate the job object to the
target
>> persistent daemon so it can do the work. This way, you don't have
to open
>> all the frameworks, deal directly with the plm interface, etc.
>>
>> Alternatively, you are welcome to do a full orte_init and use the
frameworks
>> yourself - there is no requirement to use the library. I only
offer it as an
>> alternative.
>
> As far as I can tell, neither API provides the same functionality
as that
> available in 1.2. While this might be beneficial for OMPI-specific
activities,
> the changes appear to severely limit the interaction of tools with
the
> runtime. At this point, I can't see either interface supporting PTP.
I went ahead and added a notification capability to the system -
took about
30 minutes. I can provide notice of job and process state changes
since I
see those. Node state changes, however, are different - I can notify
on
them, but we have no way of seeing them. None of the environments we
support
tell us when a node fails.
>
>>
>> I know that the tool library works because it uses the identical
APIs as
>> comm_spawn and mpirun. I have also tested them by building my own
tools.
>
> There's a big difference being on a code path that *must* work
because it is
> used by core components, to one that is provided as an add-on for
external
> tools. I may be worrying needlessly if this new interface becomes an
> "officially supported" API. Is that planned? At a minimum, it
seems like it's
> going to complicate your testing process, since you're going to
need to
> provide a separate set of tests that exercise this interface
independent of
> the rest of OMPI.
It is an officially supported API. Testing is not as big a problem
as you
might expect since the library exercises the same code paths as
mpirun and
comm_spawn. Like I said, I have written my own tools that exercise the
library - no problem using them as tests.
>
>>
>> We do not launch an orted for any tool-library query. All we do is
>> communicate the query to the target persistent daemon or mpirun.
Those
>> entities have recv's posted to catch any incoming messages and
execute the
>> request.
>>
>> You are correct that we no longer have event driven notification
in the
>> system. I repeatedly asked the community (on both devel and core
lists) for
>> input on that question, and received no indications that anyone
wanted it
>> supported. It can be added back into the system, but would
require the
>> approval of the OMPI community. I don't know how problematic that
would be -
>> there is a lot of concern over the amount of memory, overhead,
and potential
>> reliability issues that surround event notification. If you want
that
>> capability, I suggest we discuss it, come up with a plan that
deals with
>> those issues, and then take a proposal to the devel list for
discussion.
>>
>> As for reliability, the objectives of the last year's effort were
precisely
>> scalability and reliability. We did a lot of work to eliminate
recursive
>> deadlocks and improve the reliability of the code. Our current
testing
>> indicates we had considerable success in that regard,
particularly with the
>> recursion elimination commit earlier today.
>>
>> I would be happy to work with you to meet the PTP's needs - we'll
just need
>> to work with the OMPI community to ensure everyone buys into the
plan. If it
>> would help, I could come and review the new arch with the team (I
already
>> gave a presentation on it to IBM Rochester MN) and discuss required
>> enhancements.
>
> PTP's needs have not changed since 1.0. From our perspective, the
1.3 branch
> simply removes functionality that is required for PTP to support
OMPI. It
> seems strange that we need "approval of the OMPI community" to
continue to use
> functionality that has been available since 1.0. In any case,
there are
> unfortunately no resources to work on the kind of re-engineering
that appears
> to be required to support 1.3, even if it did provide the
functionality we
> need.
Afraid I have to be driven by the OMPI community's requirements
since they
pay my salary :-) What they need is a "lean, mean, OMPI machine" as
they
say, and (for some reason) they view the debugger community as
consisting of
folks like totalview, vampirtrace, etc. - all of whom get involved
(either
directly or via one of the OMPI members) in the requirements
discussions.
Can't argue with business decisions, though. I gather there was some
mention
of PTP at the recent LANL/IBM RR meeting, so I'll let people know
that PTP
won't be an option on RR.
And I'll see if there is any interest here in adding 1.3 support to
PTP
ourselves - from looking at your code, I think it would take about a
day,
assuming someone more familiar with PTP will work with me.
Take care
Ralph
>
> Greg
>
