[ofiwg] spreadsheet form this morning's call
sean.hefty at intel.com
Tue Apr 21 22:17:28 PDT 2015
> Being able to support FI_MR_SCALABLE within the framework would be great,
> although its not
> clear to me that this would be easy to do with providers who's hw doesn't
> already support this
> feature, modulo comments below.
> FI MULTI_RECV would be of interest to the MPI crew as well -as you've
> indicated with green.
This approach is still vague in my head.
Ideally, I would like for the framework to allow all providers to support the full set of features defined by OFI. However, I have concerns that this will not be possible without impacting performance.
Conceptually, I want to define overlapping feature sets that map to application needs. Then I want to map what provider features the framework would need in order to implement those features efficiently. This part is missing, and may drive changes in how the feature sets are separated. The situation gets complex if the underlying provider uses a different endpoint type (e.g. RDM over MSG). This means defining protocol, and either the framework does it or the app. The good news is that once a protocol is needed, it could result in minimal additional performance overhead to support a wider range of features. These protocols need to be well designed.
More information about the ofiwg