[Mpi3-rma] [EXTERNAL] Re: MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification

Pavan Balaji balaji at mcs.anl.gov
Sun Aug 4 19:32:09 CDT 2013

On 08/04/2013 06:57 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> Ah, ok.  I did not interpret that paragraph that way.  Since one-sided
> operations are explicitly not called out as being incoherent, I
> interpreted it as the one-sided operations must do the "right thing".
>   But I can see your concern.  Not sure what the right solution is: 1)
> fix the specification of separate to do the right thing for one-sided
> operations 2) loosen the unified specification to work in more places,
> or 3) add a third memory model.  1) has some non-cache coherent issues
> in my mind.  2) means we lose SHMEM-like semantics on those platforms,
> which greatly worries me.  3) might be the best option (ugh).

I agree (3) might be the best option.  But I won't argue against (2) 
either (I think some folks on the WG want that).

  -- Pavan

Pavan Balaji

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list