[Mpi3-rma] [EXTERNAL] Re: MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification
Pavan Balaji
balaji at mcs.anl.gov
Sun Aug 4 18:02:58 CDT 2013
Brian,
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
accesses.
UNIFIED is too complex if the user mostly cares about nonoverlapping
memory regions, and doesn't mind paying a small penalty for overlapping
regions.
SEPARATE is too expensive for such cases.
-- Pavan
--
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
More information about the mpiwg-rma
mailing list