[Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update
Rajeev Thakur
thakur at mcs.anl.gov
Wed May 26 10:36:56 CDT 2010
Perhaps we should allow only shared locks with lockall.
Rajeev
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> [mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of
> Underwood, Keith D
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:59 AM
> To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> Cc: rbbrigh at Sandia.gov; bwbarre at Sandia.gov
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update
>
> Interesting. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that
> lockall/unlockall when you get an exclusive lock or even when
> you don't assert that nobody else has an exclusive lock will
> be... complicated. The advantage of lockall/unlockall is
> that there are usage models where it is ok to not take an
> exclusive lock and to assert that nobody will.
>
> Keith
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi3-rma-
> > bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of William Gropp
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:07 AM
> > To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> > Cc: rbbrigh at Sandia.gov; bwbarre at Sandia.gov
> > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] RMA proposal 1 update
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi3-rma mailing list
> > mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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