<div dir="ltr">Hello Zhou,<div><br></div><div>First of all, thanks for the help!</div><div><br></div><div>Let me explain a little bit my use case: my team and I have a distributed and multithreaded event system implemented on top of MPI, where multiple non-blocking MPI messages are exchanged between multiple nodes. Checking our internal performance traces, we saw that there was some contention happening at the MPI layer, especially when many threads were being used.</div><div><br></div><div>Digging a little bit deeper we found some studies explaining the current multithread support of many MPI implementations and even limitations regarding the standard itself, which might explain the problems we encountered. Since each event is mapped to a unique TAG, that would be the preferred mechanism of extracting network parallelism. But since we also want to support other MPI implementations (e.g. openmpi), we think that using multiple communicators might be a better option.</div><div><br></div><div>I was hoping that messages sent to two different processes but from the same process through the same VCI would use two different locks at their origin. But now I see that a VCI is directly mapped to a hardware context of some sort. So it makes sense that the same lock would be shared between the two previously described messages.</div><div><br></div><div>If you have any other general hints on how to better extract network parallelism at the MPI level, I would be grateful. 😉 <br></div><div><br></div><div>Note: Sorry for the duplicate. I forgot to reply to the mailing list as well.</div><div><br></div><div>Thaks again for the help,</div><div>Guilherme Valarini</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Em seg., 6 de dez. de 2021 às 14:34, Zhou, Hui <<a href="mailto:zhouh@anl.gov">zhouh@anl.gov</a>> escreveu:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
The total number of VCIs are configured with <code>--with-ch4-max-vcis=#</code>. The maximum is 64. The default used to be 1, but it is changed to 64 in 4.0b1 release. There is also an option to control the vci assignment method:
<code>--enable-ch4-vci-method={communicator,tag,implicit}</code>. The default is
<code>communicator</code>, with which we assign vci to communicators in a round-robin fashion. If you create communicators consecutively, they are expected to have different VCIs. The other
<code>vci-method</code>s are at the experimental stage. If the communicator method is insufficient for your application, it may be worth a try. We'd like to understand your use case better before pointing you that way.<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
I am not exactly understanding your question. The vci locks are local process locks, so if you have N VCIs, you will have N channels for each process. With
<code>vci-method=communicator</code>, the vcis are one-to-one matched, i.e. rank 1 vci 1 only communicates to rank 2 (any ranks with the same communicator) vci 1.</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
-- <br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Hui Zhou<br>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-4176695593114987252appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="gmail-m_-4176695593114987252divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Guilherme Valarini via discuss <<a href="mailto:discuss@mpich.org" target="_blank">discuss@mpich.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 6, 2021 10:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:discuss@mpich.org" target="_blank">discuss@mpich.org</a> <<a href="mailto:discuss@mpich.org" target="_blank">discuss@mpich.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Guilherme Valarini <<a href="mailto:guilherme.a.valarini@gmail.com" target="_blank">guilherme.a.valarini@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [mpich-discuss] How locking on multi-VCI works</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello everyone,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I got one question regarding the multi-VCI support and possible locking contentions of MPICH on multi-threaded environments.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I understand that there is a direct mapping between a VCI and a communicator, so global locking is avoided on a multi-threaded application. But I wanted to know: how do these VCIs work? When I have N VCIs, do I have N virtual channels per rank (thus, one
global lock per VCI-rank pair) or only 2 channels at all (one lock per VCI)? I was wondering if, for example, two MPI_Sends targeting different ranks on the same comm might need to be synchronized using such a global lock.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the help!</div>
<div>Guilherme Valarini</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>