There is a difference with the allocate_shared memory - the "remote" memory is accessible through load-store accesses, and hence understanding the computation of the address from the offset as used at the remote process could be relevant. I vote to leave this in. Bill William Gropp Director, Parallel Computing Institute Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign On Jul 22, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote:

There is no way to query the disp_unit passed to other window creation functions, Win_create and Win_allocate, right? If so, is there any use in returning it just for Win_allocate_shared? And the returned value is the disp_unit passed by the calling process itself, which the user would need to communicate to other processes for it to be useful at all. It is not useful on the calling process except for doing local puts and gets.

Rajeev

On Jul 22, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

...

Dear All,

I think we should discuss this more. Right now, we still have more votes in favor of this than against. The change is still committed and part of the "official release". The deadline is 7/26.

Please advise what to do!

Thanks, Torsten

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:11:23PM +0000, Barrett, Brian W wrote:

...

I'm concerned with the change (and don't think it should happen at this point, as I want to be able to tell other people their changes are too big). It's probably not another O(p) structure, since a process will have to know the other rank's disp_unit to do the memcpy during the communication operations, so we crossed the O(p) bridge when we added disp_unit to allocate_shared.

Brian

-- Brian W. Barrett Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Jim Dinan [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 12:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Mpi3-rma] Disp_unit in allocate_shared should be returned by win_shared_query?

It's not inherently damaging, but it requires us to maintain/provide access to another O(p) structure and suggests to users that another process' disp_unit is useful information, which is incorrect. IIRC, we did discuss this in the working group and intentionally omitted it.

~Jim.

On 7/18/12 1:38 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:18:53PM -0500, James Dinan wrote:

...

On 7/18/12 1:06 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:08:43PM -0500, Pavan Balaji wrote:

...

On 07/18/2012 01:02 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

...

Jim,

...

Is one process' disp_unit meaningful at another process? I thought that this is not the case. MPI provides no other routines to query another process' disp_unit. It is something that the user is passing in. I don't know of a particular use-case but we can query all other arguments that each process passed. One more integer seemed safe to me.

...

Also, what meaning does a disp_unit have in the context of load/store operations that will result from win_shared_query? Nothing.

...

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem necessary. Well, it's better to have it than to introduce it with a different name later. That was my main motivation. One could also use it in a library context to query. But that's weak, I know.

This doesn't seem critical, and can always be added in MPI-3.1 if we find it necessary. No reason to rush it.

It cannot be added without a new function name. That was the concern here. Adding it seems less risk than not adding it. In addition, it is already added ;-).

I am concerned that this is a harmful change. The disp_unit from one process has no meaningful use at another process. If the user wants to know it for some reason, they can use a separate communication operation. I believe the potential damage is very limited. But we can have a vote.

So far it's still yes: 5, no: 1

I'm just mediating, not making decisions.

Torsten

_______________________________________________ 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

-- ### qreharg rug ebs fv crryF ------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC) 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801 NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736 _______________________________________________ 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