Hi all,
Sorry for the cross-post. For some reason, the schedule for the Hybrid
stuff wasn't changed as we discussed in the last WG telecon.
There is a FT working group meeting from 1-3pm. It would be great if we
could have a spontaneous parallel Hybrid/One-Sided WG meeting between
1-3pm.
We should discuss a new issue in the shared memory proposal which will
lead to postponing the first reading. It's going to be fun -- trying to
fiddle with local/remote load/store accesses in shared and non-shared
and overlapping windows :-).
All the Best,
Torsten
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
Thanks Rajeev!
All changes are in and attached to the ticket.
https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/284
Torsten
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 01:16:57PM -0500, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
> Looks good. Some comments:
>
> 6:14 - baseptrs -> baseptr
>
> 6:26 - DISP_UNIT -> SIZE
>
> 6:30 - "among all processes" -> "among all processes in comm"
>
> 6:31 - "returns" -> "and returns"
>
> 6:32 - "be target" -> "be the target"
>
> 6:33 - "accessed" -> "accesses"
>
> 6:33 - change to "remote processes; the base pointers for other processes can be queried..."
>
> 6:35 - Much of the sentence "The returned memory..." seems to be a repetition of what has been said before.
>
> 6:39 - I would like the sentence to clearly say that it is the user's responsibility to pass a communicator whose processes can share memory. How about changing it to
>
> "It is the user's responsibility to ensure that the communicator comm represents a group of processes that can create a shared memory segment that can be accessed by all processes in the group."
>
> Then we should say what happens if the communicator contains processes that cannot share memory.
>
> 7:10 - "as info key" -> "as an info key"
>
> 7:35 - MPI_WIN_FLAVOR_SHM is not defined in 11.2.6
>
>
> Since the default allocation is supposed to be contiguous, is the intended implementation method supposed to be something like the following:
> * wait for everyone to call the function
> * gather everyone's local size; add it up
> * allocate single, large shared memory
> * return local pointers everywhere
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > We just posted a new update to the proposal (thanks to Bill for the
> > comments!) to the ticket at
> > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/284/
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Torsten
> >
> > --
> > bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
> > Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead
> > Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC)
> > 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801
> > NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi3-rma mailing list
> > mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mpi3-hybridpm mailing list
> Mpi3-hybridpm(a)lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-hybridpm
>
--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead
Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC)
1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801
NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736
