The only difference would be that we'll add there might be other implementation-specific ways to do the same. -- Pavan On Aug 29, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:

On 8/28/13 7:22 PM, "Pavan Balaji" <[email protected]> wrote:

...

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?

To me, yes.

Brian

-- Brian W. Barrett Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories

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