All,
I have pushed my changes to pages 401-500. There are some instances that were not clear whether they required the change, so I am providing some notes below in addition to other questions. We could discuss this during today's meeting.
0. Shall we update the figures to reflect the change? We are the original raw figures?
1. I think “processes” is a generic term and should be left as it is in:
P435: “We assume that systems have a public memory region that is addressable by all processes.”
P436: “This communication paradigm is closest to a shared memory model, where shared data can be accessed by all processes, irrespective of location.”
2. In this sentence, the coarse-grained locks refer to the MPI window locks, right? I left it as it is, but it might have to change into “MPI window locks”
P439: “RMA does not define fine-grained mutexes in memory (only logical coarse-grained process locks)”
3. Several instances of the expression “process memory” in the semantics and correctness section were not preceded by origin, target, or other terms that define them (P453~). When prefixing the expression with “MPI”, the expression does not read well. I added “an” to identify an arbitrary MPI process, which seems correct in those contexts, but I think it needs to be reviewed carefully.
4. I think multi-process can be left as it is in (P458):
“In the RMA unified model, although the public and private copies
of the windows are synchronized, caution must be used when
combining load/stores and multi-process synchronization.”
I am not sure if it makes sense to change it into multi-endpoint later though.
5. I changed in several examples “Process A/B/0/1” into “MPI process A/B/0/1”, though am not sure it is necessary.
6. I think it is better to add the term MPI here, but we might consider removing the term thread because it is superfluous (P479):
“A call to MPI_GREQUEST_COMPLETE may unblock a blocked user process/thread.”
7. Are we supposed to use MPI or \MPI? The threading-interface section already uses \MPI process all over the place
Regards,
--Halim
www.mcs.anl.gov/~aamer
On 2/6/16 11:00 AM, mpiwg-hybridpm-request@lists.mpi-forum.org wrote:
Send mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list submissions to_______________________________________________
mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
mpiwg-hybridpm-request@lists.mpi-forum.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
mpiwg-hybridpm-owner@lists.mpi-forum.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of mpiwg-hybridpm digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Clarification of word 'process' (Daniel Holmes)
2. Re: Clarification of word 'process' (Jeff Hammond)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:31:55 +0000
From: Daniel Holmes <dholmes@epcc.ed.ac.uk>
To: Hybrid WG <mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org>
Subject: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Clarification of word 'process'
Message-ID: <56B4F8AB.7000508@epcc.ed.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi all,
I have just pushed a new branch into our mpiwg-hybrid git repo called
"hybrid-process-clarification".
It contains one commit: "Clarification of word 'process', pages 101-200".
I am anticipating that each person's changes can be recorded as a commit
with a similar message to aid identification.
There are a few instances that need discussion - specifically, when the
new MPI_AINT arithmetic functions are talking about the scope of
validity for the resulting addresses should that be OS process or MPI
process?
Cheers,
Dan.
mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list
mpiwg-hybridpm@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-hybridpm