[Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update

[Rajeev Thakur]

Perhaps we should allow only shared locks with lockall.

Rajeev 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org 
> [mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of 
> Underwood, Keith D
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:59 AM
> To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> Cc: rbbrigh at Sandia.gov; bwbarre at Sandia.gov
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update
> 
> Interesting. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 
> lockall/unlockall when you get an exclusive lock or even when 
> you don't assert that nobody else has an exclusive lock will 
> be... complicated.  The advantage of lockall/unlockall is 
> that there are usage models where it is ok to not take an 
> exclusive lock and to assert that nobody will.  
> 
> Keith
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi3-rma- 
> > bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of William Gropp
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:07 AM
> > To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> > Cc: rbbrigh at Sandia.gov; bwbarre at Sandia.gov
> > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update
> > 
> > I don't think we talked about it at all - the single lock 
> restriction 
> > was simply the consequence of needing a way to define the scope of 
> > passive target operations and support non-cache-coherent systems 
> > (don't forget that "lock" isn't a "lock" - its a "begin 
> access epoch").
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > On May 25, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:04:41PM -0600, Underwood, 
> Keith D wrote:
> > >> Lockall/unlockall was definitely on the list at the last meeting.
> > >> There wasn't consensus on many things, but there was on that one 
> > >> ;-)
> > > Ok, I added it. See wiki.
> > >
> > > We should still discuss this further. It seems like we're adding 
> > > much functionality and I'm not 100% sure if this is all 
> compatible 
> > > with
> > the
> > > MPI-2.0 design. Does anybody know the rationale for the one-lock 
> > > restriction in MPI-2?
> > >
> > > All the Best,
> > >  Torsten
> > >
> > > --
> > > bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- 
> http://www.unixer.de/ -----
> > > Torsten Hoefler         | Research Associate
> > > Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois
> > > 1205 W Clark Street     | Urbana, IL, 61801
> > > NCSA Building           | +01 (217) 244-7736
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpi3-rma mailing list
> > > mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> > 
> > William Gropp
> > Deputy Director for Research
> > Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul 
> > and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of 
> > Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi3-rma mailing list
> > mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>