[Mpi3-rma] [EXTERNAL] Re: MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification
balaji at mcs.anl.gov
Sun Aug 4 18:02:58 CDT 2013
On 08/04/2013 05:56 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> So, I guess I really don't see a problem with what we have today. As
> soon as you require a target side WIN_SYNC, there's no point in using
> Unified; the user and the implementation can live quite happily with
> SEPARATE. And, I believe, make SEPARATE go fast on platforms that only
> need a memory barrier to ensure target side ordering, rather than a
> complicated cache protocol.
That's not true. If two processes are accessing nonoverlapping memory
locations (PUT/GETs and load/stores), it would still be very useful.
With SEPARATE additional synchronization would be required for such
UNIFIED is too complex if the user mostly cares about nonoverlapping
memory regions, and doesn't mind paying a small penalty for overlapping
SEPARATE is too expensive for such cases.
More information about the mpiwg-rma