Remove get_c_op_from_fortran Auxiliary function #105
Conversation
| @@ -20,7 +22,7 @@ module mpi | |||
|
|
|||
| integer, parameter :: MPI_COMM_WORLD = -1000 | |||
| real(8), parameter :: MPI_IN_PLACE = -1002 | |||
| integer, parameter :: MPI_SUM = -2300 | |||
| integer, parameter :: MPI_SUM = MPI_SUM_value | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really like this approach of setting the value of MPI_SUM depending on the implementation, the implementations can have their nuances, e.g. they might changes the value of MPI_SUM from version to version etc.
This approach isn't something that will work for us, we definitely do need to set it to some random value but that shouldn't be used as a criterion to identify the operation to perform.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
they might changes the value of MPI_SUM from version to version etc.
Does it change? Can you check with other versions ?
As I thought that these are predefined constants they are not meant to be changed
even If that's the case Can't we keep updating the values as we switch to newer versions?
If no then we would discard this approach,
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So i checked with the mpich 4.1.1 version it were consistent with the constant values like MPI_SUM, MPI_Double, MPI_INT etc
LEt me check with openmpi for the saame
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes checked with openmpi 5.0.3 too , it's same
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This are the logs supporting the same
For OPenMPI
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 conda activate mpi
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpiexec -version
mpiexec (Open MPI) 5.0.6
Report bugs to https://www.open-mpi.org/community/help/
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpif90 ../src/mre.f90 -o a&& ./a
MPI Operations:
MPI_MAX: 1
MPI_MIN: 2
MPI_SUM: 3
MPI Datatypes:
MPI_INT: 39
MPI_LONG: 41
MPI_FLOAT: 45
MPI_DOUBLE: 46
MPI_LONG_DOUBLE: 47
MPI_LONG_LONG_INT: 43
MPI_REAL: 13
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 conda activate mpi_o
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpiexec -version
mpiexec (Open MPI) 5.0.3
Report bugs to https://www.open-mpi.org/community/help/
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpif90 ../src/mre.f90 -o a&& ./a
MPI Operations:
MPI_MAX: 1
MPI_MIN: 2
MPI_SUM: 3
MPI Datatypes:
MPI_INT: 39
MPI_LONG: 41
MPI_FLOAT: 45
MPI_DOUBLE: 46
MPI_LONG_DOUBLE: 47
MPI_LONG_LONG_INT: 43
MPI_REAL: 13For MPICH
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 conda activate mpich_o
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpif90 ../src/mre.f90 -o a&& ./a
MPI Operations:
MPI_MAX: 1476395009
MPI_MIN: 1476395010
MPI_SUM: 1476395011
MPI Datatypes:
MPI_INT: 1275069445
MPI_LONG: 1275070471
MPI_FLOAT: 1275069450
MPI_DOUBLE: 1275070475
MPI_LONG_DOUBLE: 1275072524
MPI_LONG_LONG_INT: 1275070473
MPI_REAL: 1275069468
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpiexec --version
HYDRA build details:
Version: 4.1.1
Release Date: Mon Mar 6 14:14:15 CST 2023
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 conda activate mpich
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpif90 ../src/mre.f90 -o a&& ./a
MPI Operations:
MPI_MAX: 1476395009
MPI_MIN: 1476395010
MPI_SUM: 1476395011
MPI Datatypes:
MPI_INT: 1275069445
MPI_LONG: 1275070471
MPI_FLOAT: 1275069450
MPI_DOUBLE: 1275070475
MPI_LONG_DOUBLE: 1275072524
MPI_LONG_LONG_INT: 1275070473
MPI_REAL: 1275069468
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 which mpiexec
/home/aditya-trivedi/conda_root/envs/mpich/bin/mpiexec
aditya-trivedi src type_ax ≢ ?2 mpiexec --version
HYDRA build details:
Version: 4.3.0
Release Date: Mon Feb 3 09:09:47 AM CST 2025There was a problem hiding this comment.
My concern isn't limited just the (possibly) changing values of constants with different versioning. The dependency of value on the implementation isn't fundamentally the right thing to do, considering that we can have a better solution instead of using this.
I've made a PR here: #107, which intends to do the work that this PR is doing with a different approach (same as what we've already done with other constants like MPI_COMM_WORLD etc.
I'll let @certik take a call here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The approach in #107 is fine.
This PR I would need to understand the details, I am not quite sure what is going on, so don't have an opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's go with #107 approach then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perfect, I apologize that the effort here seems wasted, but it isn't, once we get with understanding more of the MPI work we might able to better reflect on this approach later.
For now, I'll merged #107
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I always learn from this,,,, How Different Approaches have their own merits and demerits,,
Thanks for bringing that approach!!
|
As the PR #107 is merged, we can close this PR following the discussion on thread #105 (comment) |
Towards #21 #101