You are right, I should have chosen my words more carefully. I believe we tossed ordering on MPI_Put when we tossed atomicity. I don't think we ever got to the discussion of what ordering would be for the atomics. And, this is where life gets weird. I'm not positive that you need ordering for atomics, except that they are the MPI_Puts you would actually use when you needed ordering. So... I will go back to... all UPC needs is ordering from one source to one target address. I see three options: 1) Just define accumulates/get_accumulates to have the ordering that UPC needs 2) Default to the UPC ordering and allow an assert to relax that restriction. This would be consistent with how the current one-sided operations handle locks 3) Add some other call to handle ordering, but we wouldn't want some call that you had to call with EVERY put or anything... After all, all we need is relatively minimal ordering. Keith

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:mpi3-rma- [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:56 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

Keith,

The argument was against making MPI_Put more restrictive by requiring atomicity, since MPI_Accumulate with REPLACE already provides it. So, I think ordering is still important in this case.

With respect to ordering, again, I think the argument was against *only* ordered communication. I don't think there was opposition to providing both ordered and unordered.

-- Pavan

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

----- "Keith D Underwood" <[email protected]> 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] <[email protected]> To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group <[email protected]> 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

---

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