[Mpi3-rma] MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification

Pavan Balaji balaji at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Jul 31 12:30:21 CDT 2013

On 07/31/2013 12:00 PM, Jim Dinan wrote:
> I would bet that past Jim suggested striking the polling/eventually
> visibile clause and relying on window synchronization to see updates.
>   :)

Yup, so did past, present, and future Pavan.  IMO, that's a useless 

> The downside to this is that libraries like SHMEM that rely on
> passive progress and polling, would not be implementable on top of Unified.

It's pretty useless even for SHMEM, since the user doesn't know when the 
data is valid.  You could poll on a byte for it to turn to one, but at 
that point you only know about that one byte and nothing else.

Pavan Balaji

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list