In the osc component, no. Though it would be straightforward to add that feature.
-Nathan On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:05:48AM -0500, Joshua Ladd wrote: > Does this mean that you maintain a separate channel for 'put' and 'gets' > that can use multiple transports and another for atomics? > > Josh > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote: > > In the new osc component I don't try to handle that case. All atomics > have to be done through the same btl (including atomics on self). I did > this because with the default setup of Gemini they can not be mixed. If > it is possible to mix them with other networks I would be happy to add > an atomic flag for that. > > -Nathan > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:41:58AM -0500, Joshua Ladd wrote: > > Quick question. Out of curiosity, how do you handle the (common) > case of > > mixing network atomics with CPU atomics? Say for a single target > with two > > initiators, one initiator is on host with the target, so goes > through the > > SM BTL, and the other initiator is off host, so goes through the > network > > BTL. > > > > Josh > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> > wrote: > > > > What: Completely revamp the BTL RDMA interface (btl_put, btl_get) > to > > better match what is needed for MPI one-sided. > > > > Why: I am preparing to push an enhanced MPI-3 one-sided component > that > > makes use of network rdma and atomic operations to provide a fast > truely > > one-sided implementation. Before I can push this component I want > to > > change the btl interface to: > > > > - Provide access to network atomic operations. I only need add > and > > cswap but the interface can be extended to any number of > operations. > > > > The new interface provides three new functions: btl_atomic_op, > > btl_atomic_fop, and btl_atomic_cswap. Additionally there are > two new > > btl_flags to indicate available atomic support: > > MCA_BTL_FLAGS_ATOMIC_OPS, and MCA_BTL_FLAGS_ATOMIC_FOPS. The > > btl_atomics_flags field has been added to indicate which > atomic > > operations are supported (see mca_btl_base_atomic_op_t). At > this time > > I only added support for 64-bit integer atomics but I am open > to > > adding support for 32-bit as well. > > > > - Provide an interface that will allow simultaneous put/get > operations > > without extra calls into the btl. The current interface > requires the > > btl user to call prepare_src/prepare_dst before every rdma > > operation. In some cases this is a complete waste (vader, sm > with > > CMA, knem, or xpmem). > > > > I seperated the registration of memory from the segment info. > More > > information is provided below. The new put/get functions have > the > > following signatures: > > > > typedef int (*mca_btl_base_module_put_fn_t) (struct > > mca_btl_base_module_t *btl, > > struct mca_btl_base_endpoint_t *endpoint, void > *local_address, > > uint64_t remote_address, struct > mca_btl_base_registration_handle_t > > *local_handle, > > struct mca_btl_base_registration_handle_t *remote_handle, > size_t > > size, int flags, > > int order, mca_btl_base_rdma_completion_fn_t cbfunc, void > > *cbcontext, void *cbdata); > > > > typedef int (*mca_btl_base_module_get_fn_t) (struct > > mca_btl_base_module_t *btl, > > struct mca_btl_base_endpoint_t *endpoint, void > *local_address, > > uint64_t remote_address, struct > mca_btl_base_registration_handle_t > > *local_handle, > > struct mca_btl_base_registration_handle_t *remote_handle, > size_t > > size, int flags, > > int order, mca_btl_base_rdma_completion_fn_t cbfunc, void > > *cbcontext, void *cbdata); > > > > typedef void (*mca_btl_base_rdma_completion_fn_t)( > > struct mca_btl_base_module_t* module, > > struct mca_btl_base_endpoint_t* endpoint, > > void *local_address, > > struct mca_btl_base_registration_handle_t *local_handle, > > void *context, > > void *cbdata, > > int status); > > > > I may modify the completion function to provide more > information on > > the completed operation (size). > > > > - Allow the registration of an entire region even if the region > can not > > be modified with a single rdma operation. At this time > prepare_src > > and prepare_dst may modify the size and register a smaller > > region. This will not work. > > > > This is done in the new interface through the new > btl_register_mem, > > and btl_deregister_mem interfaces. The btl_register_mem > interface > > returns a registration handle of size > btl_registration_handle_size > > that can be used as either the local_handle or remote_handle > to any > > rdma/atomic function. BTLs that do not provide these functions > do not > > require registration for rdma/atomic operations. > > > > typedef struct mca_btl_base_registration_handle_t > > *(*mca_btl_base_module_register_mem_fn_t)( > > struct mca_btl_base_module_t* btl, struct > mca_btl_base_endpoint_t > > *endpoint, void *base, > > size_t size, uint32_t flags); > > > > typedef struct mca_btl_base_registration_handle_t > > *(*mca_btl_base_module_register_mem_fn_t)( > > struct mca_btl_base_module_t* btl, struct > mca_btl_base_endpoint_t > > *endpoint, void *base, > > size_t size, uint32_t flags); > > > > - Expose the limitations of the put and get operations so the > caller > > can make decisions before trying a get or put operation. Two > > examples: the Gemini interconnect has an alignment restriction > on > > get, openib devices may have a limit on how large a single > get/put > > operation can be. The current interface sort of gives the put > limit > > but it is tied to the rdma pipeline protocol. > > > > This is done in the new interface by providing btl_get_limit, > > btl_get_alignment, btl_put_limit, and btl_put_alignment. > Operations > > that violate these restrictions should return > OPAL_ERR_BAD_PARAM > > (operation over limit) or OPAL_ERR_NOT_SUPPORTED (operation > not > > supported due to alignment restructions with either the source > or > > destination buffer). > > > > This is a big change and I do not expect everyone to like 100% of > these > > changes. I welcome any feedback people have. > > > > When: Tuesday, Nov 17, 2015. This is during SC so there will be > time for > > face-to-face discussion if anyone has any concerns or would like > to see > > something changed. > > > > The proposed new btl interface as well as updated versions of: > pml/ob1, > > btl/openib, btl/self, btl/scif, btl/sm, btl/tcp, btl/ugni, and > btl/vader > > can be found in my btlmod branch at: > > > > https://github.com/hjelmn/ompi/tree/btlmod > > > > Other btls (smcuda, and usnic) still need to be updated to > provide the > > new interface. Unmodified btl will not build. > > > > If there are no objections I will push the btl modifications into > the > > master two weeks from today (Nov 17). Please take a look and let > me know > > what you think. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > de...@open-mpi.org > > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Link to this post: > > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16193.php > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > de...@open-mpi.org > > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16195.php > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16198.php > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/11/16201.php
pgpsde1fFHRKy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
