[Mpi-forum] another request for iaccept

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On Feb 25, 2016, at 2:44 PM, William Gropp <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
> 
> Some of the rationales do not apply.  In particular, I don’t believe these are important for Accept:
> 
> 1) Low overhead (justifies Isend/Irecv etc.)
> 2) Scarcity of threads (e.g., the BlueGene/L rationale)

Agreed -- neither of these are likely important for an iconnect/iaccept scenario.

But I do think the progression overlap with application threads can be quite useful.

> There are some interactions with multiple-competion routines and limitations in the generalized requests, but fixing generalized requests would be a more general solution.

Agreed -- fixing generalized requests has been a white whale for quite a while now.

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/