<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div>A standard level doc is not needed - but something akin to what I wrote on the info renaming would help. And I think the answers to your question follow from my defn:</div>
<div>1 - anything another thread does after is irrelevant</div>
<div>2 - undefined, just like other requests.</div>
<div>3 - no, usual rules apply since flush is not complete.</div>
<div>Etc. :)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font style="color:#333333"><i>Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID</i></font></div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
"Balaji, Pavan" <balaji@anl.gov> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
I can make slides to describe the options. I don't want to spend time making a standard-level document, since we are inevitably going to argue about and change.<br>
<br>
FWIW, the below definition is what I'd expect, but it still doesn't address the other questions in my list.<br>
<br>
-- Pavan<br>
<br>
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:40 PM, William Gropp <wgropp@illinois.edu> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I’d like to see a document that describes the options, then arrange a telecon with the interested folks (I do find a well-prepared telecon useful). The telecon need not involve the entire WG.<br>
> <br>
> As a start, I’d define completing an “iflush” as completing RMA operations initiated before the iflush was called. It would say nothing (either way) about operations initiated after the iflush. Most of the answers should be derivable from this definition,
which matches the other uses of nonblocking in MPI.<br>
> <br>
> Bill<br>
> <br>
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 11:19 PM, Balaji, Pavan <balaji@anl.gov> wrote:<br>
> <br>
>> <br>
>> Can we discuss this on the WG telecon (which the chair needs to restart)?<br>
>> <br>
>> I'd like to first put together rough thoughts on the semantics in slides before writing up text. Specific issues to clarify:<br>
>> <br>
>> 1. What happens when one thread is waiting on an iflush request while another thread keeps posting more operations.<br>
>> <br>
>> 2. What are the ordering semantics for two consecutive nonblocking iflush operations? Can they finish out of order? If they finish out of order, what are the semantics of accumulate operations with these epochs? Are they ordered?<br>
>> <br>
>> 3. What are the semantics of put operations in two nonblocking epochs? Can they overwrite each other?<br>
>> <br>
>> There might be more issues that need clarification too. I'm happy to make slides discussing a first draft of these (and more perhaps), but I don't want the discussion to be over email.<br>
>> <br>
>> -- Pavan<br>
>> <br>
>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>> <br>
>>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science@gmail.com> wrote:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> We really need a ticket i.e. a substantive written proposal for<br>
>>> iflush, etc. in order to make progress on the umbrella topic that<br>
>>> includes it and #459.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Pavan: Please let me know when you will have something for this.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Jeff<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
>>> From: MPI Forum <mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org><br>
>>> Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:11 AM<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [MPI Forum] #459: RMA sync ops with vector of windows<br>
>>> To:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> #459: RMA sync ops with vector of windows<br>
>>> -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------<br>
>>> Reporter: jhammond | Owner: jhammond<br>
>>> Type: New routine(s) | Status: assigned<br>
>>> Priority: Not ready / author | Milestone: 2014/12/08<br>
>>> rework | California, USA<br>
>>> Version: MPI 4.0 | Resolution:<br>
>>> Keywords: RMA | Implementation status: Waiting<br>
>>> -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Comment (by gropp):<br>
>>> <br>
>>> The WG found this interesting, but notes that there are alternatives that<br>
>>> may provide the same capability. These include nonblocking flush. In a<br>
>>> straw vote, iflush received 11 votes and nflush received 3; in contrast,<br>
>>> nsync received 9 and isync received 4.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Ticket URL: <<a href="https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/459#comment:3">https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/459#comment:3</a>><br>
>>> MPI Forum <<a href="https://svn.mpi-forum.org/">https://svn.mpi-forum.org/</a>><br>
>>> MPI Forum<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> -- <br>
>>> Jeff Hammond<br>
>>> jeff.science@gmail.com<br>
>>> <a href="http://jeffhammond.github.io/">http://jeffhammond.github.io/</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list<br>
>>> mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org<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>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> mpiwg-rma mailing list<br>
>> mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org<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>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> mpiwg-rma mailing list<br>
> mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org<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>
<br>
--<br>
Pavan Balaji ✉️<br>
<a href="http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji">http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
mpiwg-rma mailing list<br>
mpiwg-rma@lists.mpi-forum.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma</a></div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>