[Mpi3-rma] FW: draft of a proposal for RMA interfaces

[Vinod tipparaju]

As I am preparing the faq Rajeev suggested, please send me any more questions you want included.Thanks,Vinod.From: thakur at mcs.anl.govTo: mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.orgDate: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:04:14 -0600Subject: [Mpi3-rma] FW:  draft of a proposal for RMA interfaces


RE: [Mpi3-rma] draft of a proposal for RMA interfaces



Just resending this as a reminder. It would be good to have 
an FAQ that answers commonly asked questions.
 
Rajeev


From: Rajeev Thakur [mailto:thakur at mcs.anl.gov] 
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:43 PMTo: 'MPI 3.0 Remote 
Memory Access working group'Subject: RE: [Mpi3-rma] draft of a 
proposal for RMA interfaces

I think it would be good to add an FAQ section at the end, 
containing answers to questions that will be asked of any RMA proposal, such as 
non-cache-coherent, does it meet the needs of PGAS/Global Arrays, support for 
heterogeneous, how does the target know of completion, how does it interplay 
with existing RMA spec, etc. It will make sure that the proposal addresses those 
issues, that we ourselves are clear of the answers, and that they are not 
repeatedly raised at each meeting.
Rajeev 
> Richard Graham wrote: > 
>> Just to get discussion going again. Talking with 
several folks I have >> heard several concerns 
expressed about the proposal. I think it would >> 
be good if these (and others) could be raised on the list, so we can 
>> start discussion. We can continue this next 
week in Chicago, but >> Vinod will not be able to 
make this meeting, so an e-mail discussion >> will 
help. >> >> Here are 
the issues I have hear of so far: >> - May not 
work well on current h/w that is not cache coherent, as it >> requires a remote thread in this case. I believe this is for the 
SX >> series of machines, but Jesper please 
correct me if I am wrong here. >> What would be an 
alternative approach that could provide expected >> performance on platforms that may require work on the remote end 
for >> RMA for correctness, and work well on 
platforms that do require very >> specific remote 
cache management (or other actions) for correctness ? >> - Concern about future high-end platforms, under that assumption 
that >> these will not be cache coherent (and will 
actually have caches – if >> they don’t this is 
not a concern), and therefore this proposal is >> 
aimed at a short-lived technical capability. >> - 
What is missing ? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-rma/attachments/20081208/8263da12/attachment-0001.html>