They aren't in <a href="http://pnetcdf_inc.in">pnetcdf_inc.in</a> - it seems that configure is generating the comments. I have autoconf 2.67 - could that be the problem?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Wei-keng Liao <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu" target="_blank">wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Strange. I did not see any c-style comments in the source file <a href="http://pnetcdf_inc.in" target="_blank">pnetcdf_inc.in</a>.<br>
pnetcdf_inc is generated from <a href="http://pnetcdf_inc.in" target="_blank">pnetcdf_inc.in</a> at the configure time.<br>
<br>
Could you try a clean build starting from running command "autoreconf"?<br>
If the problem persist, please let us know.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Wei-keng<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Jim Edwards wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Wei-keng,<br>
><br>
> In order to build r1088 using xlf I had to edit the file src/libf/pnetcdf_inc and add a ! in front of each of<br>
> the c-style comments...<br>
><br>
> Jim<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Wei-keng Liao <<a href="mailto:wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu">wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> ncmpi_inq_buffer_usage and its fortran API are now added in r1087<br>
><br>
> Wei-keng<br>
><br>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Rob Latham wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:10:02AM -0600, Jim Edwards wrote:<br>
> >> Okay, so when do you need to call nfmpi_begin_indep_mode/<br>
> >> nfmpi_end_indep_mode? It doesn't seem to<br>
> >> be entirely consistent anymore - is it?<br>
> ><br>
> > nfmpi_begin_indep_mode and nfmpi_end_indep_mode should continue to<br>
> > wrap the blocking and independent nfmpi_put_ and nfmpi_get routines<br>
> > (those that do not end in _all).<br>
> ><br>
> > begin/end should also bracket the independent nfmpi_wait, I think.<br>
> ><br>
> > If you are interested, I think the reason for all this flipping around<br>
> > is essentially so we can keep consistent among processors the number<br>
> > of records in a record variable.<br>
> ><br>
> > ==rob<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Rob Latham <<a href="mailto:robl@mcs.anl.gov">robl@mcs.anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:32:56AM -0600, Jim Edwards wrote:<br>
> >>>> Hi Wei-keng,<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Yes that looks like what I would need. I have to think about the<br>
> >>>> independent aspect - currently i am using collective operations in almost<br>
> >>>> all cases. The performance trade offs of independent vs collective<br>
> >>>> operations are not really clear to me. Why no collective bputs?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Aw, Wei-keng already replied. Well, here's my answer, which says the<br>
> >>> same thing as Wei-keng but emphasises the "put it on a list" and<br>
> >>> "execute this list" aspects of these APIs.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> The 'buffered put' routines are a variant of the non-blocking<br>
> >>> routines. These routines defer all I/O to the wait or wait_all<br>
> >>> routine, where all pending I/O requests for a given process are<br>
> >>> stitched together into one bigger request.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> So, issuing an I/O operation under these interfaces is essentially<br>
> >>> "put it on a list". Then, "execute this list" can be done either<br>
> >>> independently (ncmpi_wait) or collectively (ncmpi_wait_all).<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> A very early instance of these routines did the "put it on a list"<br>
> >>> collectively. This approach did not work out so well for applications<br>
> >>> (like for example Chombo) where processes make a bunch of small<br>
> >>> uncoordinated I/O requests, but still have a clear part of their code<br>
> >>> where "collectively wait for everyone to finish" made sense.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I hope you have enjoyed today's episode of Parallel-NetCDF history<br>
> >>> theater.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> ==rob<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Wei-keng Liao<br>
> >>>> <<a href="mailto:wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu">wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu</a>>wrote:<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>>> The NC_EINSUFFBUF error code is returned from the bput call?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> I found a bug that 1.3.0 fails to return this error code. r1086 fixes<br>
> >>> this<br>
> >>>>> bug.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>>> If you get that error will you need to make that same bput call<br>
> >>> again<br>
> >>>>> after flushing? But the other tasks involved in the same bput call who<br>
> >>>>> didn't have full buffers would do what?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> My idea is to skip the bput request when NC_EINSUFFBUF is returned.<br>
> >>>>> Flushing at the wait call will only flush those successful bput calls,<br>
> >>> so<br>
> >>>>> yes<br>
> >>>>> you need to make the same failed bput call again after flushing.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Please note that bput APIs are independent. There is no "other tasks in<br>
> >>>>> the same bput call" issue.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>>> I could use a query function and to avoid the independent write calls<br>
> >>>>> would do an mpi_allreduce on the max memory used before calling the<br>
> >>>>> mpi_waitall. If the max is approaching the buffer size I would flush<br>
> >>> all<br>
> >>>>> io tasks. This is basically what I have implemented in pio with iput -<br>
> >>> I<br>
> >>>>> have a user determined limit on the size of the buffer and grow the<br>
> >>> buffer<br>
> >>>>> with each iput call, when the buffer meets (or exceeds) the limit on<br>
> >>> any<br>
> >>>>> task I call waitall on all tasks.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> This is a nice idea.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Please let me know if the new query API below will be sufficient for<br>
> >>> you.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> int ncmpi_inq_buffer_usage(int ncid, MPI_Offset *usage);<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> * "usage" will be returned with the current buffer usage in bytes.<br>
> >>>>> * Error codes may be invalid ncid or no attached buffer found.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Wei-keng<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Wei-keng Liao <<br>
> >>>>> <a href="mailto:wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu">wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>> Hi, Jim,<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> The usage of bput APIs is very similar to iput, except the<br>
> >>> followings.<br>
> >>>>>> 1. users must tell pnetcdf the size of buffer to be used by pnetcdf<br>
> >>>>> internally (attach and detach calls).<br>
> >>>>>> 2. once a bput API returns, user's buffer can be reused or freed<br>
> >>>>> (because the write<br>
> >>>>>> data has been copied to the internal buffer.)<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> The internal buffer is per file (as the attach API requires an ncid<br>
> >>>>> argument.) It can be used to aggregate<br>
> >>>>>> requests to multiple variables defined in the file.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> I did not implement a query API to check the current usage of the<br>
> >>>>> buffer. If this query is useful, we<br>
> >>>>>> can implement it. Let me know. But please note this query will be an<br>
> >>>>> independent call, so you<br>
> >>>>>> will have to call independent wait (nfmpi_wait). Independent wait<br>
> >>> uses<br>
> >>>>> MPI independent I/O, causing<br>
> >>>>>> poor performance, not recommended. Otherwise, you need an MPI reduce<br>
> >>> to<br>
> >>>>> ensure all processes know<br>
> >>>>>> when to call the collective wait_all.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> You are right about flushing. The buffer will not be flushed<br>
> >>>>> automatically and all file I/O happens in wait_all.<br>
> >>>>>> If the attached buffer ran out of space, NC_EINSUFFBUF error code<br>
> >>>>> (non-fatal) will return. It can be<br>
> >>>>>> used to determine to call wait API, as described above. However, an<br>
> >>>>> automatic flushing would require an MPI<br>
> >>>>>> independent I/O, again meaning a poor performance. So, I recommend to<br>
> >>>>> make sure the buffer size is<br>
> >>>>>> sufficient large. In addition, if you let pnetcdf do type conversion<br>
> >>>>> between two types of different size<br>
> >>>>>> (e.g. short to int), you must calculate the size of attach buffer<br>
> >>> using<br>
> >>>>> the larger type.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> If automatic flushing is highly desired, we can add it later.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Once the call to wait/wait_all returns, the internal buffer is marked<br>
> >>>>> empty.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Let me know if the above answers your questions.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Wei-keng<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Jim Edwards wrote:<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> No, the flush must happen in the nfmpi_wait_all.<br>
> >>>>>>> But does that call mark the buffer as empty? I'll wait and bug<br>
> >>>>>>> Wei-keng.<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Rob Latham <<a href="mailto:robl@mcs.anl.gov">robl@mcs.anl.gov</a>><br>
> >>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:52:46PM -0600, Jim Edwards wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Rob,<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> I assume that the same buffer can be used for multiple variables<br>
> >>> (as<br>
> >>>>> long<br>
> >>>>>>>> as they are associated with the same file). Is there a query<br>
> >>>>> function so<br>
> >>>>>>>> that you know when you've used the entire buffer and it's time to<br>
> >>>>> flush?<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> It does not appear to be so. The only non-data-movement routines<br>
> >>> in<br>
> >>>>>>> the API are these:<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> int ncmpi_buffer_attach(int ncid, MPI_Offset bufsize);<br>
> >>>>>>> int ncmpi_buffer_detach(int ncid);<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> The end-user doesn't flush, I don't think. I had the impression<br>
> >>> that<br>
> >>>>> once the<br>
> >>>>>>> buffer filled up, the library did the flush, then started filling<br>
> >>> up<br>
> >>>>> the buffer<br>
> >>>>>>> again. This one I'll need Wei-keng to confirm.<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> ==rob<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Jim<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Rob Latham <<a href="mailto:robl@mcs.anl.gov">robl@mcs.anl.gov</a>><br>
> >>>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:50:15AM -0600, Jim Edwards wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, I'm using iput and blocking get. I'm doing my own<br>
> >>> buffereing<br>
> >>>>> layer<br>
> >>>>>>>>> in<br>
> >>>>>>>>>> pio. I might consider using the bput functions - can you<br>
> >>> point me<br>
> >>>>> to<br>
> >>>>>>>>> some<br>
> >>>>>>>>>> documentation/examples?<br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> Sure. It's too bad Wei-keng is on vacation this month, as he's<br>
> >>> the<br>
> >>>>>>>>> one who designed and implemented this new feature for pnetcdf<br>
> >>> 1.3.0.<br>
> >>>>>>>>> Wei-keng: i'm not expecting you to reply while on vacation. I'm<br>
> >>> just<br>
> >>>>>>>>> CCing you so you know I'm talking about your work :><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> I think this might be the entire contents of our documentation:<br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> "A new set of buffered put APIs (eg. ncmpi_bput_vara_float) is<br>
> >>> added.<br>
> >>>>>>>>> They make a copy of the user's buffer internally, so the user's<br>
> >>>>> buffer<br>
> >>>>>>>>> can be reused when the call returns. Their usage are similar to<br>
> >>> the<br>
> >>>>>>>>> iput APIs. "<br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> Hey, check that out: Wei-keng wrote up a fortran example:<br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>> <a href="http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/parallel-netcdf/browser/trunk/examples/tutorial/pnetcdf-write-bufferedf.F" target="_blank">http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/parallel-netcdf/browser/trunk/examples/tutorial/pnetcdf-write-bufferedf.F</a><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> There's also the C version:<br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>> <a href="http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/parallel-netcdf/browser/trunk/examples/tutorial/pnetcdf-write-buffered.c" target="_blank">http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/parallel-netcdf/browser/trunk/examples/tutorial/pnetcdf-write-buffered.c</a><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> ==rob<br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Rob Latham <<a href="mailto:robl@mcs.anl.gov">robl@mcs.anl.gov</a>><br>
> >>>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You've been using the new 'bput/bget' routines, right? Can you<br>
> >>>>> tell<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> me a bit about what you are using them for, and what -- if any<br>
> >>> --<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> benefit they've provided?<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> (Rationale: our program management likes to see papers and<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> presentations, but the most valued contribution is 'science<br>
> >>>>> impact').<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ==rob<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rob Latham<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Argonne National Lab, IL USA<br>
> >>>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>>> --<br>
> >>>>>>>>> Rob Latham<br>
> >>>>>>>>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division<br>
> >>>>>>>>> Argonne National Lab, IL USA<br>
> >>>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> --<br>
> >>>>>>> Rob Latham<br>
> >>>>>>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division<br>
> >>>>>>> Argonne National Lab, IL USA<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> --<br>
> >>>>>>> Jim Edwards<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> CESM Software Engineering Group<br>
> >>>>>>> National Center for Atmospheric Research<br>
> >>>>>>> Boulder, CO<br>
> >>>>>>> <a href="tel:303-497-1842" value="+13034971842">303-497-1842</a><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> --<br>
> >>>>>> Jim Edwards<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> --<br>
> >>> Rob Latham<br>
> >>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division<br>
> >>> Argonne National Lab, IL USA<br>
> >>><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Rob Latham<br>
> > Mathematics and Computer Science Division<br>
> > Argonne National Lab, IL USA<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Jim Edwards<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><pre>Jim Edwards<br><br><br></pre><br>