[Mpi3-rma] Conflicting accesses
Rajeev Thakur
thakur at mcs.anl.gov
Sun Dec 12 20:36:17 CST 2010
Which sentence beginning with "For example" are you referring to? I don't see it on pg 42 of the current proposal 1.
If the example below doesn't work, then what is the use of flush?
Rajeev
On Dec 11, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We discussed the issue with the lockall/shared mode that the outcome of
> overlapping puts or put/get will be undefined. Our discussion ended at a
> point where we believed that such accesses are not valid in
> lockall/shared because there is only one access/exposure epoch.
>
> The statement (not in MPI-2) at the end of page 42 seems to imply that.
> However, I don't think that anything on page 10 (the rules for
> conflicting accesses) mandate this. Jim created this interesting example
> and both of us think it should be legal to do (without unlocking as was
> required in MPI-2):
>
> lock(exclusive)
> get(tail)
> flush()
> put(tail)
> unlock()
>
> It should be true because flush() implies completion at the target which
> means that the "mini-epoch" is now finished (yes, in MPI-2, we needed to
> close an epoch to get completion, however, in MPI-3 we don't).
>
> Do we all agree? I'd like to remove the sentence starting with "For
> example" on page 42.
>
> All the Best,
> Torsten
>
> --
> bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
> Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead
> Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC)
> 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801
> NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
More information about the mpiwg-rma
mailing list