[Mpi3-rma] MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification

Pavan Balaji balaji at mcs.anl.gov
Tue Jul 30 17:45:36 CDT 2013

On 07/30/2013 05:33 PM, Sur, Sayantan wrote:
>> On 07/30/2013 10:28 AM, Jim Dinan wrote:
>>> I believe this is adequately specified on pg 436, line 37.  P1 will
>>> *eventually* see the new value for "a" without any additional
>>> synchronization operations, but neither the flush by P0 nor the Recv
>>> by
>>> P1 guarantee that P1 will see the new value immediately.
>> This is what I said is the disagreement in the WG.  I can pull up the old email
>> chain if needed, but I think others can too.  One side was arguing that there's
>> no such guarantee and you need to do a WIN_SYNC to see the value.  The
>> other side was arguing that the WIN_SYNC should not be needed; FLUSH +
>> SEND on the origin should be enough.
> Here's the old thread: http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mpi3-rma/2011/03/0533.php
> Looks like the idea to call MPI_Win_sync for Unified got votes from both Bill and Torsten. Were there others who were in this camp?

IIRC, Torsten was against it.  Jim and I were arguing for it (i.e., 
having to call WIN_SYNC in UNIFIED).

  -- Pavan

Pavan Balaji

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list