[mpiwg-rma] RMA Errata

[William Gropp]

My preference is that load/store access follows the language rules for shared memory (I think that is what #1 means).  I don’t think anything else is viable.

For #2, I think so - again, the issue here is that while Unified promises “eventually”, real programs usually need some certainty, and for that, an explicit RMA synchronization is required.

Bill

On Jan 19, 2015, at 8:42 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-rma/attachments/20150119/e82e76ae/attachment-0001.html>