Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add .bcast() #192
Add .bcast() #192
Changes from 2 commits
4f8b20d
69f7a9c
8f32da0
9b82c17
2f83c1a
4e9d8bc
8cd3f4a
a7ff782
c68cb6f
0e429af
4d2df90
d68d556
dc3a542
22d3ccc
cc282c0
a0dcd36
837d7b2
d62a532
972239f
7445366
6dae35b
64d87e4
7db0be9
0b1f05e
75f12ca
649b3df
73ef1f3
942b936
e451486
462c8da
712339e
4245e55
55d3465
1b1f566
8697408
0509ad2
ba1623e
1808c4a
070ced0
2c10f8b
d0ace1a
b5178f2
63ef42d
2a94723
50ef63d
e9ca0cb
3b6fa05
9988bee
f91e88b
256280f
29d6960
7e9ad69
47509a9
7971b24
4673779
5783cbe
9e11330
145f007
362abd0
5f29ed8
024fe11
140adfd
afd4166
fc546ee
5baa5c4
edacedd
0b99b71
8eec8d0
bd75106
2d4ab53
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't we want an execution path where kamping resizes the buffer so that it is large enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What should the behavior be in the following cases:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think @DanielSeemaier does something like this in #170. Bcast and Scatter should probably use the same mechanisms.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Postponed, see #170 .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm I still don't really like the way it's done here. We never expected the size of the receive buffers to be set by the user and I would like to keep it that way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This would force the user to write different code for root and non-root ranks. Probably not ideal
What would you think about
send_recv_buf
being optional?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Year, I don't like splitting up the send_recv_buf into a
send_buf
andrecv_buf
, too. But iirc someone argued sternly for it, as it'll unify the interface.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about this then? :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Other than that resizing the send_recv_buf should happen after receiving the recv_count, I think that should work fine. Not sure I remember the part of the discussion about a unified interface. @kurpicz ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, I looked at the old protocols and we already voted in favor of "(Bcast) SendRecv-Buffer auf allen ranks oder wenn SendRecv-Buffer nicht gegeben ist, ist man kein Root und man bekommt das Recv Result zurück."