Re: [Mpi3-rma] MPI-3 UNIFIED model clarification
31 Jul
2013
31 Jul
'13
12:30 p.m.
On 07/31/2013 12:00 PM, Jim Dinan wrote:
I would bet that past Jim suggested striking the polling/eventually visibile clause and relying on window synchronization to see updates. :)
Yup, so did past, present, and future Pavan. IMO, that's a useless guarantee.
The downside to this is that libraries like SHMEM that rely on passive progress and polling, would not be implementable on top of Unified.
It's pretty useless even for SHMEM, since the user doesn't know when the data is valid. You could poll on a byte for it to turn to one, but at that point you only know about that one byte and nothing else. -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
4741
Age (days ago)
4741
Last active (days ago)
0 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Pavan Balaji