Re: new GR proposal(s)

Tony Skjellum (tony@Aurora.CS.MsState.Edu)
Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:40:06 -0600 (CST)

Rationales:
[Symmetry] We have persistence elsewhere, so it must be here
[Logic] We want to use this technology to build event-type
communicating structures. The most efficiency can
be hoped for is through reuse. Failure to support
reuse (through persistence), limits the ability to
make relatively expensive runtime choices, and
amortize them over millions of reuses.
[Politics] The collective chapter may vote out non-blocking
collectives, or keep the limited set. Persistent
non-blocking collectives will be most optimizable
and persistent GR's will give users a way to make
them.

Any more?
Tony

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Eric Salo wrote:

> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:40:09 -0800
> From: Eric Salo <salo@mrjones.engr.sgi.com>
> To: mpi-external@mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: new GR proposal(s)
>
> > Generalized requests need a persistent form.
>
> Because...?
>
> --
> Eric Salo Silicon Graphics Inc. "Do you know what the
> (415)933-2998 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, 8U-802 last Xon said, just
> salo@sgi.com Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 before he died?"
>

Anthony Skjellum, PhD, Associate Professor of Computer Science;
Mississippi State University, Department of Computer Science & NSF ERC
Butler, Rm 300, PO Box 9637, Corner of Perry&Barr, Mississippi State,MS 39762
(601)325-8435 FAX: (601)325-8997; http://www.erc.msstate.edu/~tony;
"Persistence is fertile." ; e-mail: tony@cs.msstate.edu; Try MPI!