On 8/28/13 7:22 PM, "Pavan Balaji" <balaji@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:To me, yes.
>
>On 08/28/2013 03:47 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>> And, further, I believe
>> that:
>>
>> X = 0
>> Win_lock_all
>> Recv
>> do { compiler_fence(); } while (0 == X);
>>
>> will eventually complete on any platform that supports UNIFIED, as the
>> public and private copies are eventually consistent. This gives us the
>> behaviors necessary for implementing SHMEM on MPI-3.
>
>Right, good point. We could retain the definition that the public and
>private windows will eventually be the same without additional MPI calls.
>
>With that in mind, does requiring WIN_SYNC for immediate synchronization
>of the two windows + a statement that there might be
>implementation-specific ways (e.g., memory barriers) to do the same
>sound reasonable from an OpenSHMEM point-of-view?