This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
Brightwell, Ronald wrote:
> Not to muddy the point, but if there's enough ambiguity in the Standard
> for people to ignore the progress rule, then I think (hope) there's enough
> ambiguity for people to ignore the sender throttling issue too ;)
I understand your position, and I used to agree until I was forced to
change my mind by naive users :-)
Poorly written MPI codes won't likely segfault or deadlock because the
progress rule was ignored. However, users will proudly tell you that you
have a memory leak if you don't limit the size of the unexpected queue
and their codes with no flow control blow up.
You don't have to make it very efficient (per-sender credits
definitively does not scale), but you need to have a way to stall/slow
the sender when the unexpected queue gets too big. That's quite easy to
do without affecting the common case.