[Mpi3-rma] nested locks

[Rajeev Thakur]

It is still disallowed in MPI-3 by this sentence

pg 437, ln 28: Distinct access epochs for win at the same process must be disjoint. 


On Aug 19, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Jim Dinan wrote:

> Jeff,
> 
> With apologies if I have misunderstood your question.  To clarify, the example Rajeev gave was forbidden in MPI-2.  One could not have concurrent passive target access epochs, even if they accessed different targets.  It is allowed in MPI-3.
> 
>  ~Jim.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
> you mean lock at those ranks, not by those ranks?  those aren't conflicting so i don't see the issue.  maybe i am a dolt though.
> 
> jeff
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Did we make any change in MPI 3.0 to allow nesting of MPI_Win_lock calls? For example,
> 
> Win_lock(rank 1)
>     Win_lock(rank 2)
> 
>     Win_unlock(rank 2)
> Win_unlock(rank 1)
> 
> I can't find the text we added or deleted to allow this.
> 
> But I do see text that disallows this:
> pg 437, ln 28: "Distinct access epochs for win at the same process must be disjoint."
> 
> Rajeev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science at gmail.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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