I'll contribute to that when I am on a more stable internet connection ;-) Keith

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:mpi3-rma- [email protected]] On Behalf Of William Gropp Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:04 AM To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] mpi3-rma post from [email protected] requires approval

I'd like to get all of the various claims and constraints documented in one place. I've created a page on the wiki into which we should place these constraints, along with the reference. That page is

https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/mpi3-rma-goals-and- constraint

The rule for this page is that the statement should be concise and precise and they should not claim that one approach is better than another. Feel free to add additional top-level items. I'm fully aware that the intersection of these requirements may produce the null set; in fact, I think that is part of the problem. Putting a summary on the web page, rather than in these email exchanges, will help us move forward.

Bill

On May 30, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:

...

Well, when Jeff and Bill successfully argued against a definition for atomicity of access for conflicting accesses beyond "undefined", we lost direct support for the UPC memory model. After that, I no longer cared about ordering and Jeff was still arguing vehemently against ordering, so my understanding was that we had dropped ordering. I am not sure why we would support ordering without an access granularity definition.

Keith

----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <mpi3-rma- [email protected]

...

To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group <[email protected] forum.org

...

Cc: Brad Chamberlain <[email protected]> Sent: Sat May 29 22:38:03 2010 Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] mpi3-rma post from [email protected] requires approval

On 05/29/2010 06:24 AM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:

...

1) Ordering: a) Ordered from a given source to a given address on a given target (unordered otherwise), or b) completely unordered

My understanding was that we were providing both 1a and 1b. Or rather, MPI-2 already gives 1b, and we are proposing 1a together with it (not instead of it).

-- Pavan

-- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji _______________________________________________ mpi3-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma

_______________________________________________ mpi3-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma

William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

_______________________________________________ mpi3-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma