[Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: MPI "Allocate receive" proposal

[Dries Kimpe]

* Barrett, Brian W <bwbarre at sandia.gov> [2013-08-26 16:06:00]:

[...]

> That being said, I don't think resource exhaustion corner cases are a deal
> breaker for me.  I think some implementation-dependent phrasing might be
> acceptable.  It might be useful to define the message
> transmission/matching semantics for these corner cases.  For example, if
> MPI_Arecv returns an error because of resource exhaustion, is the message
> lost (my preference) or left in the receive queue?  If the message is
> lost, what happens to the sender if the send was a synchronous send?

I think allowing the message to be 'lost' should be last resort and not
taken lightly, since as far as I know, a message cannot be lost using the
existing MPI functions (ignoring fault tolerance/resilience here) and, as
you pointout in your example, might cause many complexities at other
places.

  Dries
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20130826/b7799fda/attachment-0001.bin>