<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Halim Amer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aamer@anl.gov" target="_blank">aamer@anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">All,<br>
<br>
I have pushed my changes to pages 401-500. There are some instances that were not clear whether they required the change, so I am providing some notes below in addition to other questions. We could discuss this during today's meeting.<br>
<br>
0. Shall we update the figures to reflect the change? We are the original raw figures?<br>
<br>
1. I think “processes” is a generic term and should be left as it is in:<br>
P435: “We assume that systems have a public memory region that is addressable by all processes.”<br>
P436: “This communication paradigm is closest to a shared memory model, where shared data can be accessed by all processes, irrespective of location.”<br>
<br>
2. In this sentence, the coarse-grained locks refer to the MPI window locks, right? I left it as it is, but it might have to change into “MPI window locks”<br>
P439: “RMA does not define fine-grained mutexes in memory (only logical coarse-grained process locks)”<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correct. MPI_Win_lock is capable of establishing a critical section on a (MPI window,MPI process) pair, when MPI_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE is used.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
3. Several instances of the expression “process memory” in the semantics and correctness section were not preceded by origin, target, or other terms that define them (P453~). When prefixing the expression with “MPI”, the expression does not read well. I added “an” to identify an arbitrary MPI process, which seems correct in those contexts, but I think it needs to be reviewed carefully.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We should just make it clear that all references to process and process memory in the RMA chapter refer to MPI processes. I'd much rather make an O(1) change than rewrite a few dozen sentences, particularly since it's relatively clear what the intent is without any text changes.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
4. I think multi-process can be left as it is in (P458):<br>
“In the RMA unified model, although the public and private copies<br>
of the windows are synchronized, caution must be used when<br>
combining load/stores and multi-process synchronization.”<br>
I am not sure if it makes sense to change it into multi-endpoint later though.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>"combining load/stores and multi-process synchronization" -> "combining load/stores and MPI synchronization" seems adequate.</div><div><br></div><div>EOM</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
5. I changed in several examples “Process A/B/0/1” into “MPI process A/B/0/1”, though am not sure it is necessary.<br>
<br>
6. I think it is better to add the term MPI here, but we might consider removing the term thread because it is superfluous (P479):<br>
“A call to MPI_GREQUEST_COMPLETE may unblock a blocked user process/thread.”<br>
<br>
7. Are we supposed to use MPI or \MPI? The threading-interface section already uses \MPI process all over the place<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
--Halim<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~aamer" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.mcs.anl.gov/~aamer</a><br>
<br>
On 2/6/16 11:00 AM, <a href="mailto:mpiwg-hybridpm-request@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpiwg-hybridpm-request@lists.mpi-forum.org</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Send mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:mpiwg-hybridpm-request@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpiwg-hybridpm-request@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:mpiwg-hybridpm-owner@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpiwg-hybridpm-owner@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of mpiwg-hybridpm digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Clarification of word 'process' (Daniel Holmes)<br>
2. Re: Clarification of word 'process' (Jeff Hammond)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:31:55 +0000<br>
From: Daniel Holmes <<a href="mailto:dholmes@epcc.ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">dholmes@epcc.ed.ac.uk</a>><br>
To: Hybrid WG <<a href="mailto:mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org</a>><br>
Subject: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Clarification of word 'process'<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:56B4F8AB.7000508@epcc.ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">56B4F8AB.7000508@epcc.ed.ac.uk</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Hi all,<br>
<br>
I have just pushed a new branch into our mpiwg-hybrid git repo called<br>
"hybrid-process-clarification".<br>
It contains one commit: "Clarification of word 'process', pages 101-200".<br>
I am anticipating that each person's changes can be recorded as a commit<br>
with a similar message to aid identification.<br>
<br>
There are a few instances that need discussion - specifically, when the<br>
new MPI_AINT arithmetic functions are talking about the scope of<br>
validity for the resulting addresses should that be OS process or MPI<br>
process?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Dan.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Jeff Hammond<br><a href="mailto:jeff.science@gmail.com" target="_blank">jeff.science@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://jeffhammond.github.io/" target="_blank">http://jeffhammond.github.io/</a></div>
</div></div>