<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [mpi3-rma] Plans ?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Can you elaborate on this ?<BR>
<BR>
What is the intent ?<BR>
<BR>
Do you want to have ordering be required, or optional ? Seems like there are times<BR>
where you would like to have ordering guarantees, and others in which you want the<BR>
network to blast things through as fast a possible, w/o concern for ordering.<BR>
<BR>
Rich<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/27/08 12:26 AM, "Pavan Balaji" <balaji@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
I was planning to write a proposal on ordering and completion of<BR>
requests. Specifically, to treat RMA operations as ordered with respect<BR>
to how application writers perceive it. That is, if process A sends an<BR>
RMA message to process B, and then sends a regular message to process B<BR>
(with a special TAG, for instance), the MPI stack on process B should<BR>
deliver both the RMA message as well as the regular message to the<BR>
application. That is, it should not wait for the remote window to close<BR>
before doing so.<BR>
<BR>
However, it'll be good to have a telecon to bounce off ideas and get<BR>
initial comments before we go off and spend time writing more detailed<BR>
proposals.<BR>
<BR>
Is a telecon being planned? I don't seem to have received any email<BR>
about this.<BR>
<BR>
-- Pavan<BR>
<BR>
On 01/26/2008 10:43 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:<BR>
> It would be good to know if anyone is planning to write a proposal on any<BR>
> topic for MPI-3 RMA.<BR>
><BR>
> Rajeev<BR>
><BR>
>> -----Original Message-----<BR>
>> From: mpi3-rma-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu<BR>
>> [<a href="mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu]">mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu]</a> On Behalf Of Richard Graham<BR>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:18 AM<BR>
>> To: mpi3-rma@cs.uiuc.edu<BR>
>> Subject: [mpi3-rma] Plans ?<BR>
>><BR>
>> What are the plans for this working group ? At the meeting<BR>
>> last week there seemed to be quite a bit of interest in this<BR>
>> topic, and it seemed like there could be at least 2 groups<BR>
>> working on this. Seems like, if this is the case, it would<BR>
>> be better to try and coordinate early on within the working<BR>
>> group, rather than try and rationalize two or more well<BR>
>> developed proposals.<BR>
>> Any thoughts here ?<BR>
>><BR>
>> Rich<BR>
>><BR>
>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>> mpi3-rma mailing list<BR>
>> mpi3-rma@cs.uiuc.edu<BR>
>> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma</a><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> mpi3-rma mailing list<BR>
> mpi3-rma@cs.uiuc.edu<BR>
> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma</a><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Pavan Balaji<BR>
<a href="http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji">http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji</a><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
mpi3-rma mailing list<BR>
mpi3-rma@cs.uiuc.edu<BR>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma</a><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>