[Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update

[William Gropp]

I don't think we talked about it at all - the single lock restriction  
was simply the consequence of needing a way to define the scope of  
passive target operations and support non-cache-coherent systems  
(don't forget that "lock" isn't a "lock" - its a "begin access epoch").

Bill

On May 25, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:04:41PM -0600, Underwood, Keith D wrote:
>> Lockall/unlockall was definitely on the list at the last meeting.
>> There wasn't consensus on many things, but there was on that one ;-)
> Ok, I added it. See wiki.
>
> We should still discuss this further. It seems like we're adding much
> functionality and I'm not 100% sure if this is all compatible with the
> MPI-2.0 design. Does anybody know the rationale for the one-lock
> restriction in MPI-2?
>
> All the Best,
>  Torsten
>
> -- 
> bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
> Torsten Hoefler         | Research Associate
> Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois
> 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

William Gropp
Deputy Director for Research
Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies
Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign