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

Greg Burns (gdburns@tbag.osc.edu)
Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:01:16 -0400 (EDT)

>From: Jarek Nieplocha <j_nieplocha@pnl.gov>
>
>To realize the problem, please imagine a class of producer-consumer
>algorithms executed by processes A and B with the items produced/consumed
>in the window of process C (which is executing some other subtask
>and is unaware of the 1-sided coms targeting its window).
>[I tried to post this example before but my message was probably lost -
>I am on travel in Europe with limited access to Internet]

OK, I realize the problem. Now please explain why this third party
technique is the only or clearly superior method of programming
some applications in your field.

Yes, my shared memory programming experience is weak. Somehow, I thought
I wouldn't need it while working on Message-Passing Interface.
The only example I understand is the random-access requirement of building
up a matrix in some chemistry codes. You do a lot of puts and then
do a barrier. We have a high proportion of chemistry users at OSC
so I know they will be happy to have this functionality. I had a
graphics application of my own where random-access gets were required.
Is your A, B and C example fundamental to the application, the algorithm
or the programming solution employed by Global Arrays?

Why are people proposing radical changes to a chapter that has already
passed the first formal vote? Could it be that there is a profound
lack of confidence in what we are doing? I understand the vote was 13-7-5.

--
Greg