[Beowulf] Re: Re: Home beowulf - NIC latencies
kus at free.net
Mon Feb 14 10:47:15 EST 2005
In message from Rob Ross <rross at mcs.anl.gov> (Fri, 11 Feb 2005
20:47:22 -0600 (CST)):
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Isaac Dooley wrote:
>> >>Using MPI_ISend() allows programs to not waste CPU cycles waiting
>> >>completion of a message transaction.
>> >No, it allows the programmer to express that it wants to send a
>> >but not wait for it to complete right now. The API doesn't specify
>> >semantics of CPU utilization. It cannot, because the API doesn't
>> >knowledge of the hardware that will be used in the implementation.
>> That is partially true. The context for my comment was under your
>> assumption that everyone uses MPI_Send(). These people, as I stated
>> before, do not care about what the CPU does during their blocking
>I think that it is completely true. I made no assumption about
>using MPI_Send(); I'm a late-comer to the conversation.
>I was not trying to say anything about what people making the calls
>about; I was trying to clarify what the standard does and does not
>However, I agree with you that it is unlikely that someone calling
>MPI_Send() is too worried about what the CPU utilization is during
>> I was trying to point out that programs utilizing non-blocking IO
>> have work that will be adversely impacted by CPU utilization for
>> messaging. These are the people who care about CPU utilization for
>> messaging. This I hopes answers your prior question, at least
>I agree that people using MPI_Isend() and related non-blocking
>are sometimes doing so because they would like to perform some
>computation while the communication progresses. People also use
>calls to initiate a collection of point-to-point operations before
>waiting, so that multiple communications may proceed in parallel.
Let me ask some stupid's question: which MPI implementations allow
a) to overlap MPI_Isend w/computations
b) to perform a set of subsequent MPI_Isend calls faster than "the
same" set of MPI_Send calls ?
I say only about sending of large messages.
I'm interesting (1st of all) in
- Gigabit Ethernet w/LAM MPI or MPICH
- Infiniband (Mellanox equipment) w/NCSA MPI or OSU MPI
Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry
>implementation has no way of really knowing which of these is the
>Greg just pointed out that for small messages most implementations
>the exact same thing as in the MPI_Send() case anyway. For large
>I suppose that something different could be done. In our
>(MPICH2), to my knowledge we do not differentiate.
>You should understand that the way MPI implementations are measured
>their performance, not CPU utilization, so there is pressure to push
>former as much as possible at the expense of the latter.
>> Perhaps your applications demand low latency with no concern for the
>> during the time spent blocking. That is fine. But some applications
>> benefit from overlapping computation and communication, and the
>> not wasted by the CPU on communication can be used productively.
>I wouldn't categorize the cycles spent on communication as "wasted";
>not like we code in extraneous math just to keep the CPU pegged :).
>Rob Ross, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National
>Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
More information about the Beowulf