Good point Rich.
Enforcing ordering for all the cases say on networks with adaptive routing can be expensive and unnecessary.
Jarek
________________________________
From: mpi3-rma-bounces_at_[hidden] on behalf of Richard Graham
Sent: Sun 1/27/2008 4:44 PM
To: MPI 3 Remote Memory Operations
Subject: Re: [mpi3-rma] Plans ?
Can you elaborate on this ?
What is the intent ?
Do you want to have ordering be required, or optional ? Seems like there are times
where you would like to have ordering guarantees, and others in which you want the
network to blast things through as fast a possible, w/o concern for ordering.
Rich
On 1/27/08 12:26 AM, "Pavan Balaji" <balaji_at_[hidden]> wrote:
I was planning to write a proposal on ordering and completion of
requests. Specifically, to treat RMA operations as ordered with respect
to how application writers perceive it. That is, if process A sends an
RMA message to process B, and then sends a regular message to process B
(with a special TAG, for instance), the MPI stack on process B should
deliver both the RMA message as well as the regular message to the
application. That is, it should not wait for the remote window to close
before doing so.
However, it'll be good to have a telecon to bounce off ideas and get
initial comments before we go off and spend time writing more detailed
proposals.
Is a telecon being planned? I don't seem to have received any email
about this.
-- Pavan
On 01/26/2008 10:43 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
> It would be good to know if anyone is planning to write a proposal on any
> topic for MPI-3 RMA.
>
> Rajeev
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpi3-rma-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Richard Graham
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:18 AM
>> To: mpi3-rma_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: [mpi3-rma] Plans ?
>>
>> What are the plans for this working group ? At the meeting
>> last week there seemed to be quite a bit of interest in this
>> topic, and it seemed like there could be at least 2 groups
>> working on this. Seems like, if this is the case, it would
>> be better to try and coordinate early on within the working
>> group, rather than try and rationalize two or more well
>> developed proposals.
>> Any thoughts here ?
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpi3-rma mailing list
>> mpi3-rma_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma
>
--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
_______________________________________________
mpi3-rma mailing list
mpi3-rma_at_[hidden]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../images/flag-us.gif){kind=small}