[Mpi3-rma] Proposal 1 discussion points for next telecon

Sayantan Sur sayantan.sur at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 20:54:28 CDT 2010

Hi Torsten,

When is the next telecon scheduled?


On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Torsten Hoefler <htor at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Hi RMA Working Group,
> Bill and I finished the edits on proposal 1 (see wiki).
> We have several points to discuss in the next telecon:
> 1) We should work on a more generic info mechanism which solves the info
> attach, detach and query problems we mentioned (however, it should not
> be limited to RMA/windows)
> 2) We should discuss the register/deregister interface. Right now it
> has base and size. This has several issues. One possible solution would
> be to return a handle that is needed to free the memory. This has issues
> too. We put both choices into the current draft and should discuss.
> 3) CAS needs a query to determine if a datatype is hardware-optimized.
> We think it should use RMA_Query for this and assume that anything that
> returns the RMA unified model is hw optimized
> 4) Discuss difference between lock-free synchronization and lock/unlock.
> The semantics of lock-free are different from a lock-all/shared epoch.
> The main difference is that holding a "shared" lock means that the user
> guarantees that there are no conflicting accesses (if there are, then he
> can often "upgrade" to an exclusive lock). So this is consistent with
> the literature on concurrent programming. If we now allow conflicting
> accesses (remember that MPI-2 defines a "conflicting" access on a
> per-window granularity) in lock-shared then this would break this
> semantic property. One would also need to allow this for the single-lock
> epochs and this could cost us several optimizations.
> 5) Do we need ordering semantics for any other synchronization mode? I
> would like to keep it a bit separate for now (i.e., in the lockfree
> synch mode), however, it would not be hard to specify it also for other
> modes. Are there use-cases?
> 6) We added a sentence about the access granularity to 11.5.5 (lockfree
> synchronization). This is because we have to allow conflicting accesses
> (load/store + put/get etc.) in the same epoch on a window. The
> granularity there is aligned with MPI's access granularity (i.e.,
> datatype sizes). We avoided to mention anything in bytes or such.
> I uploaded the latest working version to the wiki at
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/wiki/mpi3-rma-proposal1/one-side-2.pdf
> Thanks a lot,
>  Torsten & Bill
> --
>  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

Sayantan Sur

Research Scientist
Department of Computer Science

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list