We made some really good progress on today's call. Attached are some notes that I took from the call. At the end of the call there were a couple of items that we wanted to get a finer understanding of. As a result we are going to try to setup another teleconf. Below is a doodle poll to pick a date/time: http://www.doodle.com/kzmiknie8yz4wxkc If you are interested in attending this teleconf, please fill out the poll by 2 pm Eastern on Monday, Feb. 6. Thanks, Josh On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Josh Hursey <[email protected]> wrote:

Just a reminder that we are meeting today at Noon Eastern to discuss RMA in the context of the fault tolerance proposal.

The Run-Through Stabilization proposal can be found attached to the ticket: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/276

https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/ticket/276/FTWG-Proc...

We will be focusing on section 17.11 of that document. Note that this section does not currently explicitly account for the new RMA proposal, but we would like to remedy that for the next reading.

Thanks, Josh

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Josh Hursey <[email protected]>wrote:

...

There was no one date/time that worked for everyone, but I chose a time that worked for most of the respondents. We will meet Thursday, Feb. 2 from 12-1 pm EST/New York to discuss this topic.

We can use the following teleconf information: US Toll Free number: 877-801-8130 Toll number: 1-203-692-8690 Access Code: 1044056

Thanks, Josh

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Josh Hursey <[email protected]>wrote:

...

(Cross posted to both the RMA and FT MPI-3 listservs)

During the FT plenary session at the Jan. MPI Forum meeting it was recommended that some of the members of the FT group and the RMA group have a meeting to hash out the precise details of the FT semantics for the RMA chapter. So I would like to facilitate such a discussion, preferability in the next week (so we have time to fine tune things before the next forum meeting).

In general, we are trying to answer the question "How should RMA operations behave when a process failure occurs?" The feeling seemed to be that the current approach is ok (invalidating the window, forcing recreation/validation), but the statement that the memory exposed in the window is 'undefined' seemed excessive. The suggestion was to change the wording to something like "Only the memory associated with a window that was targeted by an operation that modified it is undefined after process failure in the group associated with the window." This lead to a considerable amount of debate in the meeting, so it was suggested that we take the discussion offline.

Below is a link to a doodle poll to find a good time for a teleconf. If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please fill this poll out by 2 PM Eastern on Wed. Jan 25 so we can set the date/time. http://www.doodle.com/vd33va5h8iankega

Thanks, Josh

-- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

-- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

-- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey

-- Joshua Hursey Postdoctoral Research Associate Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey