I’d be opposed to making the standard more assymetric than what it already is. If you are adding a concept, it should be orthogonal to other functionality. Number of functions is not the criteria; number of concepts is. —- Pavan On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> wrote:
We've discussed this at MCS coffee hour but I wanted to post to the WG regarding the interface issue.
I understand that the addition of Rrput, Rraccumulate, and Rrrget_accumulate (Rget is already fully pirated-out) may be unpalatable to some people.
I propose that we add _only_ Rrrget_accumulate and tell users to implement Rrput and Rraccumulate in terms of it using MPI_NO_OP and - in the first case - MPI_REPLACE. The reasoning is by analogy with MPI_Alltoallw, which is sufficient to implement MPI_Scatterw, etc., albeit inefficiently.
If we add only Rrrget_accumulate, the loss of efficiency will be comparatively quite small compared to W-collectives (and certainly not order-N buffer copies) and should only be due to a few unnecessary arguments and a couple of branches, which I argue is not sufficient to motivate the addition of two more functions to the standard. I don't believe that users want pirate RMA to optimize for latency...
Is this reasonable? I'm hoping to present this at the Chicago Forum meeting if the WG believes we are sufficiently converged in our thinking.
Thanks,
Jeff
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jim Dinan <[email protected]> wrote:
I think the pirate RMA (separate per operation local/remote completion) idea is good. I'm not sure I'm sold on the interface; I'd rather not add so many new functions, if there's some other way we could do it. I think we should explore the different design options so that we can verify for the Forum that we've chosen the best one.
-- Jeff Hammond [email protected] _______________________________________________ mpiwg-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma
-- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji