[Mpi3-rma] MPI_Win_Allocate_shared proposal draft

[Jeff Hammond]

Can someone post a link to the ticket for MPI_Comm_split_type?  Google
finds me nothing on this function.

Thanks,

Jeff

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>> 6:39 - I would like the sentence to clearly say that it is the user's responsibility to pass a communicator whose processes can share memory. How about changing it to
>>
>> "It is the user's responsibility to ensure that the communicator comm represents a group of processes that can create a shared memory segment that can be accessed by all processes in the group."
>>
>> Then we should say what happens if the communicator contains processes that cannot share memory.
>
> If the new function MPI_Comm_split_type passes, we need to remember to provide a reference here to it, because it is directly relevant for this use case.
>
> Rajeev
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
>
>> Looks good. Some comments:
>>
>> 6:14 - baseptrs -> baseptr
>>
>> 6:26 - DISP_UNIT -> SIZE
>>
>> 6:30 - "among all processes" -> "among all processes in comm"
>>
>> 6:31 - "returns" -> "and returns"
>>
>> 6:32 - "be target" -> "be the target"
>>
>> 6:33 - "accessed" -> "accesses"
>>
>> 6:33 - change to "remote processes; the base pointers for other processes can be queried..."
>>
>> 6:35 - Much of the sentence "The returned memory..." seems to be a repetition of what has been said before.
>>
>> 6:39 - I would like the sentence to clearly say that it is the user's responsibility to pass a communicator whose processes can share memory. How about changing it to
>>
>> "It is the user's responsibility to ensure that the communicator comm represents a group of processes that can create a shared memory segment that can be accessed by all processes in the group."
>>
>> Then we should say what happens if the communicator contains processes that cannot share memory.
>>
>> 7:10 - "as info key" -> "as an info key"
>>
>> 7:35 - MPI_WIN_FLAVOR_SHM is not defined in 11.2.6
>>
>>
>> Since the default allocation is supposed to be contiguous, is the intended implementation method supposed to be something like the following:
>>   * wait for everyone to call the function
>>   * gather everyone's local size; add it up
>>   * allocate single, large shared memory
>>   * return local pointers everywhere
>>
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> We just posted a new update to the proposal (thanks to Bill for the
>>> comments!) to the ticket at
>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/284/
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Jeff Hammond
Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
University of Chicago Computation Institute
jhammond at alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/index.php/User:Jhammond