I see. My definition of ordering was a little bit different from yours. My definition was -- if I do two accumulates with replace on the same location, I'm guaranteed to have the second value in the location. It didn't have any definition of ordering to two different locations. So, I think we need to come to a consensus first on what the actual definition of ordering is. -- Pavan On 06/05/2010 02:22 PM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:

...

...

We would need to think about whether we have to have the whole message ordered or ordered on a per target address basis. Atomicity and ordering go hand-in-hand; if there's no atomicity, ordering doesn't make sense. Since we have basic datatype atomicity for accumulate/get_accumulate, ordering would make sense at that granularity as well.

If someone wants to propose full-message atomicity, then we can consider ordering at that granularity too. But till then, whole message ordering is an overkill.

Well, they aren't orthogonal, but they aren't quite that tightly linked. A user that knew that two messages were not going to overlap might want to use a full message ordering from a single node for completion detection. E.g. an MPI_Accumulate() with "replace" to one buffer and then an MPI_Accumulate() to another buffer to increment a variable and use the full message ordering to be able to use the latter for completion without the expense of a flush() between the messages. So, it has value and a usage scenario. I just don't know if we want to go that far or not.

Keith

-- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji