[mpiwg-persistence] Summary of Semantics for Partitioned Communication Operations

[Bangalore, Purushotham]

Here is the updated spreadsheet based on Dan's suggestions. I would really like the persistence WG to finalize this ASAP.

I know Ryan would like to review the changes to the chapter before it is merged during tomorrow's meeting. If there is time left after that, I would like to discuss this.

Thanks,
Puri

________________________________
From: mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org> on behalf of Bangalore, Purushotham via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:54 PM
To: HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org>; mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Summary of Semantics for Partitioned Communication Operations

Here are the other footnotes (I should have pasted them near footnote 20):

7) Addresses are cached on the request handle.

9) One shall not free or deallocate the bu er before the operation is freed, that is MPI_REQUEST_FREE returned.

14) Nonblocking procedure without an I pre fix.

=====
I will move PREADY,...,PARRIVED after START... good suggestion.

I also agree with "ic" for the PREADY, PARRIVED procedures.

________________________________
From: HOLMES Daniel <d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Bangalore, Purushotham <puri at uab.edu>
Cc: mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>; mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpiwg-semantic-terms at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] Summary of Semantics for Partitioned Communication Operations

Hi Puri,

Thanks for this - a great way to provoke some progress (no pun intended).

I would suggest: move the rows dealing with MPI_PREADY and MPI_PARRIVED between MPI_START and MPI_WAIT, i.e. in the approximate calling order.

Also, I would add “ic” for the new MPI_PREADY, MPI_PARRIVED, etc procedures - because the operation is definitely incomplete at the point in time they are called, during the time interval of their entire execution, and at the point in time they return - there is no possibility they could be completing or freeing procedures.

What are the other footnotes: 7, 9, and 14? (I could look them up but I’d have to choose the same draft version as you because the numbering changed recently.)

Cheers,
Dan.
—
Dr Daniel Holmes PhD
Architect (HPC Research)
d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk<mailto:d.holmes at epcc.ed.ac.uk>
Phone: +44 (0) 131 651 3465
Mobile: +44 (0) 7940 524 088
Address: Room 2.09, Bayes Centre, 47 Potterrow, Central Area, Edinburgh, EH8 9BT
—
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
—

On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:24, Bangalore, Purushotham via mpiwg-persistence <mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:mpiwg-persistence at lists.mpi-forum.org>> wrote:

<MPI-semantics-appendix.xlsx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-persistence/attachments/20200721/23ca99ac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MPI-semantics-appendix.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 12723 bytes
Desc: MPI-semantics-appendix.xlsx
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-persistence/attachments/20200721/23ca99ac/attachment-0001.xlsx>