Wes Bland
Wes Bland
This isn't a PR.
We continued discussing this on Slack, but I want to slurp in that this should probably be an allreduce for a few reasons, most notably because there are some hints...
> Probably. What "op" should we use? There's probably two ways it could be done: 1. Use an allgather to collect every processes's set of info keys to make determinations...
Yep. That's what I meant. I agree that it's more flexible, though I don't know if it makes a practical difference since we probably will only use optimizations when everyone...
I think this would apply to any optimizations you'd do for any of the assertions currently in the standard (`no_any_source`, `no_any_tag`, `allow_overtaking`). If both sides don't agree to the protocol,...
That may or may not be possible. For instance, if you did something like `allow_overtaking` to use relaxed ordering requirements, you'd need both the sender and receiver to agree on...
> I don't know how `allreduce(sum)` will help. We should probably add an internal op called `is_equal`. ```c if (sum == comm.size) is_equal = true; ```
Looks like that was original CH4 code from Charles. He added a bunch of these that were probably too strict.
Does this change anything for the xfail system?
@zhenggb72 and @jain-surabhi-23 took a brief look a while back and discovered that we're actually implementing some of the necessary functions (`MPIDI_OFI_dynproc_handshake` and `MPIDI_OFI_dynproc_exchange_map`) with tagged interfaces. So it makes...