- mpiwg-rma - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

[Mpi3-rma] Flexible RMA Synchronization for MPI-3
by Hubert Ritzdorf 16 Apr '08

16 Apr '08

Sorry, now really attached. Hi, I have attached a proposal for ``Flexible RMA Synchronization for MPI-3''. Aim of the proposal is to give a single process or a set of processes of application programs the possibility to signal a target process (i.e. a \MPI/ process from which data was read or to which data was written by RMA communication calls) that the writing of data or reading of data is completed and that the target process is able to proceed. Best regards Hubert

1 0

[Mpi3-rma] Flexible RMA Synchronization for MPI-3
by Hubert Ritzdorf 16 Apr '08

16 Apr '08

Hi, I have attached a proposal for ``Flexible RMA Synchronization for MPI-3''. Aim of the proposal is to give a single process or a set of processes of application programs the possibility to signal a target process (i.e. a \MPI/ process from which data was read or to which data was written by RMA communication calls) that the writing of data or reading of data is completed and that the target process is able to proceed. Best regards Hubert

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Shipman, Galen M. 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

Rajeev, On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote: > Some comments: > > * Are the semantics supposed to be that the original value at the > target is > read and stored at the result_addr on the origin (like a Get), and the > target memory is updated with the result of the reduction operation > (like > Accumulate)? Exactly, the value prior to the update is "returned" in the result_addr and the target memory is updated with the result of the operation. > > * What are the semantics of the two-operand versions? > For MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP: operand_addr is the comparand, operand2_addr is the operand. Comparand is compared to the value at the target, if these values are equal then operand is written to the value at the target. For MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP: operand_addr is the maskarand, operand2_addr is the operand. Maskarand identifies the bits within the value at the target to be updated with the corresponding bits from operand. > * Why is there no count, datatype at the target like in Accumulate? This is intentional, datatypes and count must match on passive and active sides and are therefore implicit. > > * When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT, what is the lock > type for > the Win_lock -- shared or exclusive? As all MPI_RMW/2 operations have the potential of updating the remote value and may therefore cause conflicts I would expect this to be an MPI_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE > Also, Win_unlock takes only two > parameters. > Yes, the example needs to be corrected. Thanks for the comments, Galen > * Regarding the interaction with explicit epochs of Rmw when assert == > MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT, it should be the same as the > interaction of > its equivalent sequence, namely, Lock - Rmw - Unlock. In other > words, there > shouldn't be another epoch around it on the same process (nested > epochs not > allowed), and the epochs on other processes must not conflict. > > Rajeev > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Shipman, Galen M. >> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:10 PM >> To: mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> Subject: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations >> >> >> Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed >> below for >> consideration. >> >> - Galen Shipman - ORNL >> >> >> Single operand RMW operations >> >> MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, >> int count, >> MPI_Datatype datatype, >> void *result_addr, >> int target_rank, >> MPI_Aint target_disp, >> int assert, >> MPI_RMW_Op op, >> MPI_Win win) >> >> >> Two operand RMW operations >> >> MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, >> int count, >> MPI_Datatype datatype, >> void *operand2_addr, >> void *result_addr, >> int target_rank, >> MPI_Aint target_disp, >> int assert, >> MPI_RMW_2_Op op, >> MPI_Win win) >> >> >> >> MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations >> The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW >> and related >> functions. These operations are invoked by placing the >> following in op. >> >> Name Meaning >> >> MPI_RMW_INC increment >> MPI_RMW_PROD product >> MPI_RMW_SUM sum >> MPI_RMW_LAND logical and >> MPI_RMW_LOR logical or >> MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor >> MPI_RMW_BAND binary and >> MPI_RMW_BOR binary or >> MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor >> MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value >> >> MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations >> >> Name Meaning >> >> MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits >> MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap >> >> Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to >> consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, <>. >> >> Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. >> When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is >> equivalent to: >> >> MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); >> MPI_Rmw(.....); >> MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); >> >> When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK >> the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need not be >> acquired. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-rma mailing list >> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-rma mailing list > mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Rajeev Thakur 27 Mar '08

27 Mar '08

Some comments: * Are the semantics supposed to be that the original value at the target is read and stored at the result_addr on the origin (like a Get), and the target memory is updated with the result of the reduction operation (like Accumulate)? * What are the semantics of the two-operand versions? * Why is there no count, datatype at the target like in Accumulate? * When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT, what is the lock type for the Win_lock -- shared or exclusive? Also, Win_unlock takes only two parameters. * Regarding the interaction with explicit epochs of Rmw when assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT, it should be the same as the interaction of its equivalent sequence, namely, Lock - Rmw - Unlock. In other words, there shouldn't be another epoch around it on the same process (nested epochs not allowed), and the epochs on other processes must not conflict. Rajeev > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi3-rma-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Shipman, Galen M. > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:10 PM > To: mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations > > > Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed > below for > consideration. > > - Galen Shipman - ORNL > > > Single operand RMW operations > > MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, > int count, > MPI_Datatype datatype, > void *result_addr, > int target_rank, > MPI_Aint target_disp, > int assert, > MPI_RMW_Op op, > MPI_Win win) > > > Two operand RMW operations > > MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, > int count, > MPI_Datatype datatype, > void *operand2_addr, > void *result_addr, > int target_rank, > MPI_Aint target_disp, > int assert, > MPI_RMW_2_Op op, > MPI_Win win) > > > > MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations > The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW > and related > functions. These operations are invoked by placing the > following in op. > > Name Meaning > > MPI_RMW_INC increment > MPI_RMW_PROD product > MPI_RMW_SUM sum > MPI_RMW_LAND logical and > MPI_RMW_LOR logical or > MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor > MPI_RMW_BAND binary and > MPI_RMW_BOR binary or > MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor > MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value > > MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations > > Name Meaning > > MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits > MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap > > Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to > consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, <>. > > Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. > When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is > equivalent to: > > MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); > MPI_Rmw(.....); > MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); > > When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK > the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need not be > acquired. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-rma mailing list > mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Shipman, Galen M. 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

HI Brian, On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Brian W. Barrett wrote: > That makes sense. How would an MPI_Rmw() call with the IMPLICIT > epoch interact with explicit epochs? If the answer is "it wouldn't", > I think that's valid. We just need to state it. I would think the behavior would be undefined or "it wouldn't". > > Also, is there any reason we're not using the standard OP defines? > We would need additional operations for RMW/2 (as shown) and restrict other operations that don't apply within the standard. I would also want to carefully look at the implementation costs for using the standard OP defines. - Galen > Brian > > On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Howard Pritchard wrote: > >> Hello Brian, >> >> That was the idea. >> >> The problem as we saw it is that in non-mpi shared memory >> applications, atomic memory operations are typically used for >> lightweight >> synchronization. Having to always use potentially heavyweight lock/ >> unlock >> sequences seems to defeat the purpose of adding rmw operations to the >> mpi specification. >> >> This is a special case of the more general discussion that we should >> have about global visibility of rma operations, etc. >> >> Howard >> >> Brian W. Barrett wrote: >> >>> If MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT is not given, is synchronization >>> explicit using the standard epoch functions? >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Shipman, Galen M. wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed below >>>> for >>>> consideration. >>>> >>>> - Galen Shipman - ORNL >>>> >>>> >>>> Single operand RMW operations >>>> >>>> MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, >>>> int count, >>>> MPI_Datatype datatype, >>>> void *result_addr, >>>> int target_rank, >>>> MPI_Aint target_disp, >>>> int assert, >>>> MPI_RMW_Op op, >>>> MPI_Win win) >>>> >>>> >>>> Two operand RMW operations >>>> >>>> MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, >>>> int count, >>>> MPI_Datatype datatype, >>>> void *operand2_addr, >>>> void *result_addr, >>>> int target_rank, >>>> MPI_Aint target_disp, >>>> int assert, >>>> MPI_RMW_2_Op op, >>>> MPI_Win win) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations >>>> The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW and >>>> related >>>> functions. These operations are invoked by placing the following >>>> in op. >>>> >>>> Name Meaning >>>> >>>> MPI_RMW_INC increment >>>> MPI_RMW_PROD product >>>> MPI_RMW_SUM sum >>>> MPI_RMW_LAND logical and >>>> MPI_RMW_LOR logical or >>>> MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor >>>> MPI_RMW_BAND binary and >>>> MPI_RMW_BOR binary or >>>> MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor >>>> MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value >>>> >>>> MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations >>>> >>>> Name Meaning >>>> >>>> MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits >>>> MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap >>>> >>>> Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to >>>> consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, >>>> <>. >>>> >>>> Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. >>>> When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is >>>> equivalent to: >>>> >>>> MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); >>>> MPI_Rmw(.....); >>>> MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); >>>> >>>> When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK >>>> the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need >>>> not be >>>> acquired. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi3-rma mailing list >>>> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Howard Pritchard >> Cray Inc. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi3-rma mailing list >> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >> > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Dept. 1422: Scalable Computer Architectures > Sandia National Laboratories > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-rma mailing list > mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Howard Pritchard 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

Hello Brian, Brian W. Barrett wrote: >That makes sense. How would an MPI_Rmw() call with the IMPLICIT >epoch interact with explicit epochs? If the answer is "it wouldn't", >I think that's valid. We just need to state it. > > This is a good point. Given the way it is illegal to have an 'epoch within an epoch' currently, I think this should continue to be enforced. So I would prefer the "it wouldn't", otherwise we risk making rma epoch semantics more complicated. >Also, is there any reason we're not using the standard OP defines? > > We could use the standard ones for the non-fetching operations. For fetching operations we could re-use them as long as it was clearly defined what was returned to the initiator in 'result_addr'. Some new operations would have to be added for compare and swap and masked compare and swap though. Howard >Brian > >On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Howard Pritchard wrote: > > > >>Hello Brian, >> >>That was the idea. >> >>The problem as we saw it is that in non-mpi shared memory >>applications, atomic memory operations are typically used for >>lightweight >>synchronization. Having to always use potentially heavyweight lock/ >>unlock >>sequences seems to defeat the purpose of adding rmw operations to the >>mpi specification. >> >>This is a special case of the more general discussion that we should >>have about global visibility of rma operations, etc. >> >>Howard >> >>Brian W. Barrett wrote: >> >> >> >>>If MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT is not given, is synchronization >>>explicit using the standard epoch functions? >>> >>>Brian >>> >>>On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Shipman, Galen M. wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed below >>>>for >>>>consideration. >>>> >>>>- Galen Shipman - ORNL >>>> >>>> >>>>Single operand RMW operations >>>> >>>>MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, >>>> int count, >>>> MPI_Datatype datatype, >>>> void *result_addr, >>>> int target_rank, >>>> MPI_Aint target_disp, >>>> int assert, >>>> MPI_RMW_Op op, >>>> MPI_Win win) >>>> >>>> >>>>Two operand RMW operations >>>> >>>>MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, >>>> int count, >>>> MPI_Datatype datatype, >>>> void *operand2_addr, >>>> void *result_addr, >>>> int target_rank, >>>> MPI_Aint target_disp, >>>> int assert, >>>> MPI_RMW_2_Op op, >>>> MPI_Win win) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations >>>>The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW and >>>>related >>>>functions. These operations are invoked by placing the following >>>>in op. >>>> >>>>Name Meaning >>>> >>>>MPI_RMW_INC increment >>>>MPI_RMW_PROD product >>>>MPI_RMW_SUM sum >>>>MPI_RMW_LAND logical and >>>>MPI_RMW_LOR logical or >>>>MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor >>>>MPI_RMW_BAND binary and >>>>MPI_RMW_BOR binary or >>>>MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor >>>>MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value >>>> >>>>MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations >>>> >>>>Name Meaning >>>> >>>>MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits >>>>MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap >>>> >>>>Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to >>>>consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, >>>><>. >>>> >>>>Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. >>>>When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is >>>>equivalent to: >>>> >>>>MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); >>>>MPI_Rmw(.....); >>>>MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); >>>> >>>>When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK >>>>the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need not be >>>>acquired. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>mpi3-rma mailing list >>>>mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >> >>Howard Pritchard >>Cray Inc. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>mpi3-rma mailing list >>mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >> >> >> > > > -- Howard Pritchard Cray Inc.

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Brian W. Barrett 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

That makes sense. How would an MPI_Rmw() call with the IMPLICIT epoch interact with explicit epochs? If the answer is "it wouldn't", I think that's valid. We just need to state it. Also, is there any reason we're not using the standard OP defines? Brian On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Howard Pritchard wrote: > Hello Brian, > > That was the idea. > > The problem as we saw it is that in non-mpi shared memory > applications, atomic memory operations are typically used for > lightweight > synchronization. Having to always use potentially heavyweight lock/ > unlock > sequences seems to defeat the purpose of adding rmw operations to the > mpi specification. > > This is a special case of the more general discussion that we should > have about global visibility of rma operations, etc. > > Howard > > Brian W. Barrett wrote: > >> If MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT is not given, is synchronization >> explicit using the standard epoch functions? >> >> Brian >> >> On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Shipman, Galen M. wrote: >> >> >> >>> Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed below >>> for >>> consideration. >>> >>> - Galen Shipman - ORNL >>> >>> >>> Single operand RMW operations >>> >>> MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, >>> int count, >>> MPI_Datatype datatype, >>> void *result_addr, >>> int target_rank, >>> MPI_Aint target_disp, >>> int assert, >>> MPI_RMW_Op op, >>> MPI_Win win) >>> >>> >>> Two operand RMW operations >>> >>> MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, >>> int count, >>> MPI_Datatype datatype, >>> void *operand2_addr, >>> void *result_addr, >>> int target_rank, >>> MPI_Aint target_disp, >>> int assert, >>> MPI_RMW_2_Op op, >>> MPI_Win win) >>> >>> >>> >>> MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations >>> The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW and >>> related >>> functions. These operations are invoked by placing the following >>> in op. >>> >>> Name Meaning >>> >>> MPI_RMW_INC increment >>> MPI_RMW_PROD product >>> MPI_RMW_SUM sum >>> MPI_RMW_LAND logical and >>> MPI_RMW_LOR logical or >>> MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor >>> MPI_RMW_BAND binary and >>> MPI_RMW_BOR binary or >>> MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor >>> MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value >>> >>> MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations >>> >>> Name Meaning >>> >>> MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits >>> MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap >>> >>> Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to >>> consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, >>> <>. >>> >>> Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. >>> When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is >>> equivalent to: >>> >>> MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); >>> MPI_Rmw(.....); >>> MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); >>> >>> When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK >>> the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need not be >>> acquired. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi3-rma mailing list >>> mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > > Howard Pritchard > Cray Inc. > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-rma mailing list > mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma > -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1422: Scalable Computer Architectures Sandia National Laboratories

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Howard Pritchard 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

Hello Brian, That was the idea. The problem as we saw it is that in non-mpi shared memory applications, atomic memory operations are typically used for lightweight synchronization. Having to always use potentially heavyweight lock/unlock sequences seems to defeat the purpose of adding rmw operations to the mpi specification. This is a special case of the more general discussion that we should have about global visibility of rma operations, etc. Howard Brian W. Barrett wrote: >If MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT is not given, is synchronization >explicit using the standard epoch functions? > >Brian > >On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Shipman, Galen M. wrote: > > > >>Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed below for >>consideration. >> >>- Galen Shipman - ORNL >> >> >>Single operand RMW operations >> >>MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, >> int count, >> MPI_Datatype datatype, >> void *result_addr, >> int target_rank, >> MPI_Aint target_disp, >> int assert, >> MPI_RMW_Op op, >> MPI_Win win) >> >> >>Two operand RMW operations >> >>MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, >> int count, >> MPI_Datatype datatype, >> void *operand2_addr, >> void *result_addr, >> int target_rank, >> MPI_Aint target_disp, >> int assert, >> MPI_RMW_2_Op op, >> MPI_Win win) >> >> >> >>MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations >>The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW and >>related >>functions. These operations are invoked by placing the following >>in op. >> >>Name Meaning >> >>MPI_RMW_INC increment >>MPI_RMW_PROD product >>MPI_RMW_SUM sum >>MPI_RMW_LAND logical and >>MPI_RMW_LOR logical or >>MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor >>MPI_RMW_BAND binary and >>MPI_RMW_BOR binary or >>MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor >>MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value >> >>MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations >> >>Name Meaning >> >>MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits >>MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap >> >>Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to >>consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, <>. >> >>Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. >>When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is >>equivalent to: >> >>MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); >>MPI_Rmw(.....); >>MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); >> >>When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK >>the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need not be >>acquired. >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>mpi3-rma mailing list >>mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma >> >> >> > > > -- Howard Pritchard Cray Inc.

1 0

Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Brian W. Barrett 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

If MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT is not given, is synchronization explicit using the standard epoch functions? Brian On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Shipman, Galen M. wrote: > > Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed below for > consideration. > > - Galen Shipman - ORNL > > > Single operand RMW operations > > MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, > int count, > MPI_Datatype datatype, > void *result_addr, > int target_rank, > MPI_Aint target_disp, > int assert, > MPI_RMW_Op op, > MPI_Win win) > > > Two operand RMW operations > > MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, > int count, > MPI_Datatype datatype, > void *operand2_addr, > void *result_addr, > int target_rank, > MPI_Aint target_disp, > int assert, > MPI_RMW_2_Op op, > MPI_Win win) > > > > MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations > The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW and > related > functions. These operations are invoked by placing the following > in op. > > Name Meaning > > MPI_RMW_INC increment > MPI_RMW_PROD product > MPI_RMW_SUM sum > MPI_RMW_LAND logical and > MPI_RMW_LOR logical or > MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor > MPI_RMW_BAND binary and > MPI_RMW_BOR binary or > MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor > MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value > > MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations > > Name Meaning > > MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits > MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap > > Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to > consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, <>. > > Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. > When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is > equivalent to: > > MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); > MPI_Rmw(.....); > MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); > > When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK > the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need not be > acquired. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi3-rma mailing list > mpi3-rma(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma > -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1422: Scalable Computer Architectures Sandia National Laboratories

1 0

[Mpi3-rma] MPI RMW operations
by Shipman, Galen M. 24 Mar '08

24 Mar '08

Howard and I have been working on the RMW operations listed below for consideration. - Galen Shipman - ORNL Single operand RMW operations MPI_Rmw(void *operand_addr, int count, MPI_Datatype datatype, void *result_addr, int target_rank, MPI_Aint target_disp, int assert, MPI_RMW_Op op, MPI_Win win) Two operand RMW operations MPI_Rmw2(void *operand_addr, int count, MPI_Datatype datatype, void *operand2_addr, void *result_addr, int target_rank, MPI_Aint target_disp, int assert, MPI_RMW_2_Op op, MPI_Win win) MPI_RMW_Op Predefined RMW single operand operations The following predefined operations are supplied for MPI_RMW and related functions. These operations are invoked by placing the following in op. Name Meaning MPI_RMW_INC increment MPI_RMW_PROD product MPI_RMW_SUM sum MPI_RMW_LAND logical and MPI_RMW_LOR logical or MPI_RMW_LXOR logical xor MPI_RMW_BAND binary and MPI_RMW_BOR binary or MPI_RMW_BXOR binary xor MPI_RMW_SWAP swap value MPI_RMW_2_Op Predefined RMW two operand operations Name Meaning MPI_RMW2_MASK_SWAP swap masked bits MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP compare and swap Note: MPI_RMW2_COMP_SWAP is an equality comparison, we may wish to consider multiple comparison operations such as >, >=, <, <=, ==, <>. Both MPI_Rmw and MPI_Rmw2 take an assert argument. When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT MPI_Rmw/2 is equivalent to: MPI_Win_lock(target_rank,0,win); MPI_Rmw(.....); MPI_Win_unlock(target_rank,0,win); When assert == MPI_MODE_PASSIVE_EPOCH_IMPLICIT | MPI_MODE_NOCHECK the MPI library knows that the window lock at the target need not be acquired.

1 0