[mpiwg-rma] RMA Errata

[Jeff Hammond]

My parents took the same lazy approach as the MPI Forum regarding
asynchronous progress in RMA, so I can only work on the RMA chapter
when I am communicating with Forum members via email or telecon.  This
makes me totally useless but I still tell my friends that I am a
high-quality implementation.

I fully support #2.  I'm sure that #1 makes sense but since PSCW makes
my brain hurt and I stopped using point-wise Lock/Unlock as soon as
MPI-3 dropped, I haven't thought about it much.

Best,

Jeff


On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bumping this thread for progress.  Please take a look a the two errata
> suggestions that I captured from the December meeting.  If folks feel that
> this is a good direction, I can convert the informal text below into proper
> errata proposals.
>
>  ~Jim.
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Reviewing my notes from the WG meeting, it appears that the following
>> errata would clarify many misunderstandings of the MPI-3 RMA spec:
>>
>> 1) Clarify the target process rank for load/store operations on shared
>> memory windows.  This is needed so that synchronization operations (e.g.
>> lock/unlock and PSCW) are well defined on shared memory windows.
>>
>> 2) Clarify that that while there is one copy of the window data in memory
>> in the unified memory model, there are still public and private views that
>> must be synchronized according to the RMA semantics.
>>
>> Is there enough support for these that they should be captured for future
>> discussion?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  ~Jim.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-rma mailing list
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma



-- 
Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com
http://jeffhammond.github.io/