<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">There are lots of choices. Passive target can be used. Or a single thread can call MPI_Win_fence - all threads can call the RMA communication routines. Its only having multiple threads making a collective call to MPI_Win_fence on the same window that is an issue (and not consistent with how MPI handles other collective operations).<div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">William Gropp</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">Director, Parallel Computing Institute</div></div></div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; ">Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign</div></div><div><br></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 21, 2014, at 10:24 AM, William Gropp wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I agree with Rajeev, and I suspect the text that only mentions communicators was an oversight - it probably came from the language in MPI-1.1 where only communicators existed. I do think that this needs to be clarified. After all, it is (as it should be) incorrect for two threads in the same process to call MPI_Barrier on the same communicator, even though we could define the semantics in this specific situation.<div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">William Gropp</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">Director, Parallel Computing Institute</div></div></div></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; ">Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign</div></div><div><br></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 20, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I always assumed that concurrent calls from multiple threads to collective functions on the same comm, win, or fh are not allowed. For example, there is also a collective MPI_File_sync(fh).<br><br>Rajeev<br><br><br>On Jun 20, 2014, at 1:32 PM, "Balaji, Pavan" <<a href="mailto:balaji@anl.gov">balaji@anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Right. We don’t say something similar for windows. Was it intentional or just an accidental ommission?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> — Pavan<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 20, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Rajeev Thakur <<a href="mailto:thakur@mcs.anl.gov">thakur@mcs.anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">FWIW, the collective communication chapter says this on 217:24-27.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"Finally, in multithreaded implementations, one can have more than one, concurrently<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">executing, collective communication call at a process. In these situations, it is the user's responsibility<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to ensure that the same communicator is not used concurrently by two di erent<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">collective communication calls at the same process."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 20, 2014, at 1:18 PM, "Balaji, Pavan" <<a href="mailto:balaji@anl.gov">balaji@anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">That doesn’t disallow it. It just says the ordering is arbitrary, which is OK in my example.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">— Pavan<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 20, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Rajeev Thakur <<a href="mailto:thakur@mcs.anl.gov">thakur@mcs.anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">There is this text on pg 484, ln 18-22<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"Collective calls: Matching of collective calls on a communicator, window, or file handle is done according to the order in which the calls are issued at each process. If concurrent threads issue such calls on the same communicator, window or file handle, it is up to the user to make sure the calls are correctly ordered, using interthread synchronization."<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Rajeev<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 20, 2014, at 1:11 PM, "Balaji, Pavan" <<a href="mailto:balaji@anl.gov">balaji@anl.gov</a>><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The standard itself doesn’t seem to disallow it. This means that, at least, MPICH is incorrect here. I’d expect most MPICH derivatives to be incorrect for this as well.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">However, I’m trying to understand if that was the intention (and just forgotten to describe in the standard). We never discussed this in the MPI-3 working group.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">— Pavan<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) <<a href="mailto:dgoodell@cisco.com">dgoodell@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 20, 2014, at 11:16 AM, "Balaji, Pavan" <<a href="mailto:balaji@anl.gov">balaji@anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Is the following code correct? Two threads of a process both do the following:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">MPI_PUT<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">MPI_PUT<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">MPI_WIN_FENCE<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Collectives are not allowed on the same communicator simultaneously. But we don’t say anything similar for windows.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">As I read it, it should be fine according to the standard as long as you haven't specified any assertions that would cause you to be lying to the implementation.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">When we don't specifically disallow concurrent multithreaded operations, then the general threading text seems to allow this. See MPI-3, p.483, l.1-11:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">----8<----<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The two main requirements for a thread-compliant implementation are listed below.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1. All MPI calls are thread-safe, i.e., two concurrently running threads may make MPI calls and the outcome will be as if the calls executed in some order, even if their execution is interleaved.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2. Blocking MPI calls will block the calling thread only, allowing another thread to execute, if available. The calling thread will be blocked until the event on which it is waiting occurs. Once the blocked communication is enabled and can proceed, then the call will complete and the thread will be marked runnable, within a finite time. A blocked thread will not prevent progress of other runnable threads on the same process, and will not prevent them from executing MPI calls.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">----8<----<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">So, absent some external inter-thread synchronization, it will be undefined exactly which epoch the MPI_PUTs end up in.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-Dave<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mpiwg-rma mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mpiwg-rma mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mpiwg-rma mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mpiwg-rma mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mpiwg-rma mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">mpiwg-rma mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a><br></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>mpiwg-rma mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>mpiwg-rma mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>