[mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014

[Jim Dinan]

I think the argument against was that can be hard to get fine-grain,
per-operation remote completion, and harder still to do it efficiently.
So, we could end up with an interface that builds a false expectation where
users expect overlap that many implementations can't provide.

 ~Jim.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:

> Barrett didn't have a good argument against these functions except
> argument count, as I recall. There was some debate as to whether
> nonblocking flush was better, albeit in an apples-to-oranges way.
>
> I think most people are just frustrated with the grossness of the corner
> we are painted into with RMA API. Pirate RMA is the natural consequence of
> past decisions. The other solution to the application's problem is
> overlapping windows, which would be only mildly awful if not for our
> inability to support just one memory model.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:47 AM, "Underwood, Keith D" <
> keith.d.underwood at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, what, you're telling me I have to start attending again to give you
> an appropriate amount of difficulty for some of these proposals?
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mpiwg-rma [mailto:mpiwg-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Jeff Hammond
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:39 PM
> >> To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group
> >> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-rma] RMA WG discussion 12/2014
> >>
> >> Pirate RMA (remote request completion - cannot remember ticket number)
> >> needs to be retired if WG is still not in favor. But then again,
> Barrett is gone :-
> >> )
> >>
> >> Nonblocking RMA epochs in your SC14 paper should be discussed. That
> looks
> >> promising. Can you create a ticket for it?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Gropp <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The wiki page already has 397 and I added 460.  Note also that there
> is a list
> >> of open tickets on that page; we should try to either adopt or retire
> the open
> >> ones.
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to discuss
> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/397 and the
> >>>> closely related
> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/460 in San Jose.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we collect the other tickets of interest to people and ask Martin
> >>>> for the appropriate allocation of time?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jeff Hammond
> >>>> jeff.science at gmail.com
> >>>> http://jeffhammond.github.io/
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> >>>> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> >>> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> >> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpiwg-rma mailing list
> > mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141111/bc56ed77/attachment-0001.html>