Jack Dongarra opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and inviting everyone to introduce themselves. He then reviewed the ``rules of order'' for the first and second readings of proposals, as well as the voting procedures for the meeting. The strategy for dividing the attendees into breakout sessions was then discussed. A poll was taken to see how many attendees were interested in each of the proposed sessions.
It was decided that discussion of the ``BLAS Extensions'' and ``C Interface to the Legacy BLAS'' would be combined into one group. Discussion of the ``BLAS Lite/Thin'' and ``Environmental routines'' would similarly be combined.
It was then decided to have a brief discussion of the unified BLAS document, which was prepared by Puri and Sven over the past two days prior to the meeting. The structure/presentation of the document was a topic of lively debate. About half of the attendees preferred a unified document for the BLAST proposal instead of separate ``proposals'' or stand-alone chapters. The proposed document format (accepted by vote of the forum at the previous meeting) primarily contains separate chapters on functionality, language independent specifications, and language binding issues. Interleaved in these sections would be information pertaining to the sequential, sparse, parallel, etc. However, several attendees voiced concern at this interleaved proposal idea instead of self-contained chapters. Specifically, if a user or vendor is only interested in information pertaining to the sparse BLAS, he or she would still need to read the entire document. As the debate continued, it was decided to continue the discussion after the break-out sessions.
The following discussion groups met in the morning session:
After lunch, the following discussion groups met for the afternoon session:
At 3:00pm, a plenary presentation of the results of the day's break-out sessions occurred.
The BLAS Functionality session decided that the justification/priority column of the tables will be deleted and instead the justification for each routine will be included in the text of the document. The tables referring specifically to Sparse BLAS functionality will be deferred to the Sparse BLAS chapter/proposal. The first reading of the Functionality chapter/proposal will occur at the next meeting.
The Legacy BLAS session decided that the chapter/proposal will include the C interface to the BLAS, the Fortran90 interface to the BLAS, and the extensions to the BLAS. These latter two sections will be added to the Legacy BLAS chapter in order to increase the number of short-term deliverables, and will be available for a first reading at the next meeting. The ``Extensions'' list will be kept as short as possible. Vendors were asked to provide a list of BLAS extensions that they have incorporated into their optimized BLAS libraries in order to see some commonality of needs in the vendor's applications community. Multiple instance routines will not be included as part of the extensions to the BLAS, and will instead be discussed as part of the ``New BLAS'' in a separate section of the proposal. The C interface to the BLAS was also discussed section by section in preparation for the first reading later in the meeting. A ``row major'' and a ``column major'' interface will be provided, and character arguments will be handled as enumerated types. The only topics of contention were Section 5.1.4 ``Handling of complex data types'', and Section 5.1.5 ``Return values of complex functions''. Compatibility with the C9X standard effort was stressed.
When the Sparse BLAS chapter/proposal was addressed, a first reading of the document was suggested as their were no ``new'' decisions made at the break-out session, merely re-explaining of some previous design decisions, and some suggestions to make the presentation of the document clearer. This first reading suggestion was opposed as several attendees felt that the user interface issue had not been fully addressed. Thus, the language binding issue of free format or ``data neutral'' versus specific data formats for the user interface of the software was addressed. The ``data-neutral'' user level interface is not necessarily meant to replace the ``concrete routines'' that are already in place, but can be viewed as an opaque interface whereby someone else can implement their specific data formats. This is exactly what Iain Duff proposed with the User Level Sparse BLAS and the issue may be addressed (if there is interest).
The Language Bindings discussion centered on a handle-based language interface, whereby the software has an opaque ``data neutral'' interface and the user is free to choose the storage format or data distribution of his choice, and the software converts his format to the format used within the software. Concern was raised at the performance cost of this opaque interface at the low-level BLAS routines, as it would require the re-organization/redistribution of data that could be more costly than the operation itself. The forum attendees were divided on the issue of ``Do the majority of users want the option of a more opaque data-neutral interface or do they prefer to stay with more traditional storage formats?''
The BLAST Lite/Thin and Environmental Routines discussion was next addressed. It was decided that the BLAS Lite/Thin would be included in the ``Journal of Development'' appendix of the document until this standardization effort has achieved more maturity. Further study is needed on the issue of environmental routines.
The Interval BLAS session summarized the needs of the Interval BLAS community addressed in its proposal. Several attendees asked for applications that justify these needed operations. It was suggested that the Interval BLAS requires further development and maturation before it can be considered for inclusion in the document. At present the Interval BLAS discussion will be contained in the ``Journal of Development''.
The Parallel BLAS discussion re-addressed the issues of developing a standard for distributed-memory dense BLAS operations. It was suggested that to avoid confusion with threaded and shared-memory BLAS efforts, the effort should not be called Parallel BLAS, but instead distributed-memory BLAS. It was proposed that this effort should define a specific set of functionality needed for distributed-memory operations, and perhaps add functions for distribution parameter queries, divide-and-conquer task queue management, and data generation for input/output. There should be no alignment restrictions in the proposed routines, and a Cartesian or block-cyclic mapping plus replication should be supported for data distribution. (The document may say Cartesian, but a particular implementation may be restricted to a subset of general Cartesian.) The language binding issue of user interface was again discussed as some attendees felt that a specific data distribution should not be specified. It was further summarized that operations derived from the Functionality document are intra-context only, but general tools are provided to allow for expressing inter-context operations. This set of intra-context operations for general redistribution needs to be specified. Coherency and repeatability requirements need to also be addressed, as well as the issue of interoperability. In short, the interface to the distributed-memory BLAS should resemble the serial interface as closely as possible. As a result of the discussion, several attendees pointed out that we need to address the issue of thread-safety (repeatability) in the serial dense BLAS.
Jack Dongarra opened the morning session with a brief overview of the agenda for the day. A tentative date for the next meeting was first discussed, following by the first reading of the C interface to the BLAS section of the Legacy BLAS proposal/chapter, and finally the discussion of the organization/unification of the BLAS document.
The C Interface to the BLAS proposal was presented as a first reading. A formal vote was taken on each section of the document. Nine eligible voters were in attendance -- Univ. of Tenn., NAG, NIST, Cray, HP/Convex, Intel, NEC, Univ. of Houston, and Univ. of Notre Dame. A unanimous vote of all nine in favor of each section was produced, with only minor modifications suggested for various sections. It was proposed that Section 5.2 would become an appendix, a section would be produced on error-handling, and the prototypes from the header file would be included as an appendix.
Finally, the question of the presentation of the proposal document was again addressed. Concern was again raised for the user who is only interested in one aspect of the standard and must read the entire document. A straw vote was taken to ascertain if we should try to integrate the BLAST proposal into one unified document. Seventeen people were present for the vote. Six attendees voted in favor of the unified document instead of separate ``proposals'' or stand-alone chapters. This document (hereafter referred to as FORM A) primarily contains separate chapters on functionality, language independent specifications, and language binding issues. Interleaved in these sections would be information pertaining to the sequential, sparse, parallel, etc. Eight attendees voted in favor of the BLAS document with separate self-contained chapters (hereafter referred to as FORM B) for each of the various flavors of BLAS. Concern was raised for the difficulty of maintaining consistency throughout the document if chapters remain separate. Three attendees abstained from the straw vote.
Discussion continued and a formal vote was taken on the organization/format of the BLAS document. Ten eligible voters were present -- representing the Univ. of Tenn., NAG, NIST, Cray, HP/Convex, Intel, NEC, Univ. of Houston, Univ. of Notre Dame, and Mississippi State Univ.. Four attendees voted in favor of FORM A, and six attendees voted in favor of FORM B.
It was decided that a draft format for FORM B would be circulated in a timely manner.
A summary of the meeting was then provided by Jack Dongarra; he reviewed the tentative schedule for the next meeting, and thanked Shane Story and Intel Corporation for hosting the meeting.
Several of the BLAS chapters (Legacy BLAS, Functionality, and Sparse BLAS) may be ready for a first reading at the next meeting, and it was decided that several of the proposed BLAS additions are not developed enough to consider inclusion in the document as separate chapters, instead they will be included in the Appendix entitled ``Journal of Development'' until they are deemed mature enough to be included in the standardization effort. An issue that must be decided at the next meeting will be the language binding issue of an opaque ``data neutral'' user interface versus a specific pre-defined ``concrete'' interface for the specification of data formats in the Sparse BLAS and the specification of data distribution in the Parallel BLAS.
The ``Journal of Development'' for the BLAS Technical Forum contains proposals considered for the BLAS Forum but not included for any of several reasons, including:
In most cases it was felt that the features in this ``Journal of Development'' represented capabilities that should be considered. The BLAS Techinical Forum decided that these proposals should be preserved as input to a potential future BLAST Forum process.
The tentative date of the next forum meeting is:
and will be hosted by the University of Tennessee, with a preliminary deadline of November 19, 1997 for subgroup progress.
The meeting was then adjourned by Jack Dongarra at 12:30 PM.
Attendees list for the August 14-15, 1997 BLAST Forum Meeting
Puri Bangalore Miss. State Univ. email@example.com Susan Blackford Univ. of TN, Knoxville firstname.lastname@example.org Andrew Chapman NEC Systems Laboratory email@example.com Theresa Do Cray/SGI firstname.lastname@example.org Jack Dongarra Univ. of TN / ORNL email@example.com Roger Golliver Intel Bruce Greer Intel firstname.lastname@example.org John Gunnels Univ. of TX, Austin email@example.com Sven Hammarling NAG, UK firstname.lastname@example.org Greg Henry Intel email@example.com Chenyi Hu Univ. of Houston/Downtown firstname.lastname@example.org Hsin-Ying Lin HP Convex Technology Ctr. email@example.com Andrew Lumsdaine Univ. of Notre Dame Lumsdaine.firstname.lastname@example.org Kristi Maschhoff Tera Computers email@example.com Antoine Petitet Univ. of TN firstname.lastname@example.org Roldan Pozo NIST email@example.com Jeremy Siek Univ. of Notre Dame firstname.lastname@example.org Tony Skjellum Miss. State Univ. email@example.com Shane Story Intel firstname.lastname@example.org Clint Whaley Univ. of TN, Knoxville email@example.com
Susan Blackford and Andrew Lumsdaine agreed to take minutes for the meetings.