[mpi3-rma] Plans ?

[Nieplocha, Jarek]

Good point Rich. 
 
Enforcing ordering for all the cases say on networks with adaptive routing can be expensive and unnecessary.
 
Jarek

________________________________

From: mpi3-rma-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu on behalf of Richard Graham
Sent: Sun 1/27/2008 4:44 PM
To: MPI 3 Remote Memory Operations
Subject: Re: [mpi3-rma] Plans ?


Can you elaborate on this ?

What is the intent ?

Do you want to have ordering be required, or optional ?  Seems like there are times
 where you would like to have ordering guarantees, and others in which you want the
 network to blast things through as fast a possible, w/o concern for ordering.

Rich


On 1/27/08 12:26 AM, "Pavan Balaji" <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:



	
	
	I was planning to write a proposal on ordering and completion of
	requests. Specifically, to treat RMA operations as ordered with respect
	to how application writers perceive it. That is, if process A sends an
	RMA message to process B, and then sends a regular message to process B
	(with a special TAG, for instance), the MPI stack on process B should
	deliver both the RMA message as well as the regular message to the
	application. That is, it should not wait for the remote window to close
	before doing so.
	
	However, it'll be good to have a telecon to bounce off ideas and get
	initial comments before we go off and spend time writing more detailed
	proposals.
	
	Is a telecon being planned? I don't seem to have received any email
	about this.
	
	  -- Pavan
	
	On 01/26/2008 10:43 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
	> It would be good to know if anyone is planning to write a proposal on any
	> topic for MPI-3 RMA.
	>
	> Rajeev
	>
	>> -----Original Message-----
	>> From: mpi3-rma-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
	>> [mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Graham
	>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:18 AM
	>> To: mpi3-rma at cs.uiuc.edu
	>> Subject: [mpi3-rma] Plans ?
	>>
	>> What are the plans for this working group ?  At the meeting
	>> last week there seemed to be quite a bit of interest in this
	>> topic, and it seemed like there could be at least 2 groups
	>> working on this.  Seems like, if this is the case, it would
	>> be better to try and coordinate early on within the working
	>> group, rather than try and rationalize two or more well
	>> developed proposals.
	>> Any thoughts here ?
	>>
	>> Rich
	>>
	>> _______________________________________________
	>> mpi3-rma mailing list
	>> mpi3-rma at cs.uiuc.edu
	>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma
	>>
	>>
	>
	> _______________________________________________
	> mpi3-rma mailing list
	> mpi3-rma at cs.uiuc.edu
	> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma
	>
	
	--
	Pavan Balaji
	http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
	_______________________________________________
	mpi3-rma mailing list
	mpi3-rma at cs.uiuc.edu
	http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/mpi3-rma