[mpiwg-rma] Draft MPI RMA chapter update

[Jeff Hammond]

(1)

If we are going to fix "It is often useful in a put operation to
combine the data moved to the target process with the data that
resides at that process, rather than replacing it." in 11.3.4, we
should go all the way to

"It is often useful in a remote update operation to combine the data
moved to the target process with the data that resides at that
process, rather than replacing it."

because "put" is not a superset of MPI_Put and MPI_Accumulate.

(2)

page 46 line 10-11: "each access epoch much target a different
process." s/much/must/

(3)

The text added on page 47 "Completes an RMA access epoch started by a
call to MPI_WIN_LOCK on window win." and "Completes a shared RMA
access epoch started by a call to MPI_WIN_LOCK_ALL on window win."
appear to add a semantic restriction not present in MPI 3.0, unless it
says somewhere else that LOCK_ALL must be matched by UNLOCK_ALL and
not by the appropriate number of UNLOCK calls, and vice versa.  If it
says this, I can't remember where it is.

And if one wants to add this text, it would seem symmetric to specify
that FLUSH_ALL and FLUSH_LOCAL_ALL should be associated with LOCK_ALL
epochs and not N*LOCK epochs.  However, I do not think this is
something we should do, and thus I infer we want to be less specific
in the previous instance, meaning, we should use

"Completes an RMA access epoch started by a call to MPI_WIN_LOCK or
MPI_WIN_LOCK_ALL on window win."

for both cases on page 47.



Jeff

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 8:33 AM, William Gropp <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Attached is an update to the RMA chapter.  This does not introduce or change any features; it simply corrects some language and appearance (spacing) and removes a few errors in the text.  New text is in red; deletions are not shown.  Also attached is the svn diff for these items.  The chapter authors reached consensus on these; we have a list of things that the RMA group should discuss at the next meeting.  Also note, because of the short time left, the other chapter authors have not had a chance to review these - any errors are mine.
>
> If you find a problem with these updates (not just awkward wording, or a new problem), respond to the whole group so that we can discuss it as quickly as possible.
>
> Bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/