[mpiwg-rma] FW: [Mpi3-rma] [EXTERNAL] Re: MPI-3 UNIFIED model updates

Jim Dinan james.dinan at gmail.com
Tue Aug 27 12:56:33 CDT 2013

So, we should define it as not defined?

OpenSHMEM itself does not define what should happen if you poll on a
location that is the target of an RMA update.  The "proper" way to poll in
SHMEM is to call one of the built-in polling functions (e.g.
shmem_int_wait(location, value)), which can deal with the data consistency


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On 08/27/2013 11:39 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>> I agree with Keith. Losing SHMEM as a client of MPI-3 is not worth
>> symmetry or other esoteric properties.
>> It's entirely reasonable to say the standard leaves no-sync unified as
>> undefined = implementation-defined. This would not be the first time.
> Your statements are inconsistent.  You said you agree with Keith, but then
> said that the no-sync unified option should be undefined.  That's not what
> Keith is saying; he wants that to have *defined* behavior, i.e., it is
> valid for the client to do platform-specific memory consistency.
>  -- Pavan
> --
> Pavan Balaji
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
> ______________________________**_________________
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma<http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-rma/attachments/20130827/f59c9311/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list