[mpiwg-rma] need MPI_MODE_NOSTORE (and MPI_MODE_NOLOAD) for passive-target

[Jim Dinan]

Sounds reasonable to me.  Are there other assertions that would be useful
to consider?  I can't think of a use case, but MPI_MODE_NOFLUSH could be
given in conventional lock/unlock epochs.

 ~Jim.


On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com>wrote:

> Now that we allow both load-store and Put/Get within an epoch in the
> UNIFIED model, we should enable the MPI_MODE_NOSTORE as well as the
> new assertion MPI_MODE_NOLOAD for MPI_WIN_LOCK(_ALL) in MPI 3.0 \S
> 11.5.5.
>
> This suggestion was inspired by Brian's comment about NIC-cached
> atomics.  I presume that implementation can relax the consistent
> enforced if these assertions are used.
>
> This is not necessarily a complete statement of the issues at hand but
> I presume we can get there rather quickly if people think about this.
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Jeff Hammond
> jeff.science at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> 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/20131021/24cd4bc3/attachment-0001.html>