Re: A proposal to change the direction of 1-sided comm

Eric Salo (salo@mrjones.engr.sgi.com)
Tue, 25 Jun 1996 15:16:42 -0700

> But, later, I go even further, and suggest getting rid of the use
> of BARRIER as well, by making GET and PUT true collective communications,
just
> like GATHER and SCATTER (and, in fact, close to them semantically).

This is probably not a useful model, unless I misunderstand something. For
example, the current "barrier-only" model would still allow multiple PUTs:

Process A Process B
--------- ---------
PUT
PUT
PUT
BARRIER BARRIER

I think that this type of situation is one of the primary motivations for the
one-sided model; the remote process does not need to know the specifics of the
data, it just needs to know when to synchronize.

-- 
Eric Salo         Silicon Graphics Inc.             "Do you know what the
(415)933-2998     2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, 8U-808     last Xon said, just
salo@sgi.com      Mountain View, CA   94043-1389     before he died?"