Can we add this to the agenda to discuss next week?


On Dec 4, 2013, at 1:05 AM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm@llnl.gov> wrote:

I think this could be interesting and helpful, but wouldn't this be expensive in the implementation, at least for some variables? Would we need some way to say which variables can be read atomically?

Martin


On Dec 3, 2013, at 2:27 PM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres@cisco.com>
wrote:

I'm trolling through SC-accumulated emails and saw one that prompted me to ask here (I think I asked about this before, but don't remember): is there any interest in atomic vector reads of MPI_T variables?

I ask because, especially for pvars, if you loop over reading a bunch of them, they're not atomic, and you might not get consistent values.  But if you can issue a single MPI_T read for N values all at once, you have a much better chance of getting an atomic/consistent set of values.

--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

_______________________________________________
mpiwg-tools mailing list
mpiwg-tools@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools

________________________________________________________________________
Martin Schulz, schulzm@llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA



_______________________________________________
mpiwg-tools mailing list
mpiwg-tools@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools

--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres@cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

_______________________________________________
mpiwg-tools mailing list
mpiwg-tools@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-tools