Jeff paraphrased an unnamed source as suggesting that: "any MPI program
that relies on a barrier for correctness is an incorrect MPI application."
. That is probably too strong.
How about this assertion?
If there are no wildcard receives - every MPI_Barrier call is semantically
irrelevant.
It is the exception that tests the rule.
If someone can provide an example of an MPI_Barrier that is required by an
application based on MPI communication and that does not use wildcard
receive I am interested in seeing it. I do not know of a counter example
but also do not have proof of the assertion I place before the group.
No fair using examples with non-MPI interactions among tasks or with job
steering by asynchronous triggers from outside the job. I can construct
them myself.
MPI_WIN_FENCE is semantically required in some situations and examples that
show a semantic need for MPI_WIN_FENCE do not count against the assertion.
I have appreciated the descriptions from Gus, Asjley and others of some
non-symantic justifications for an MPI_Barrier.
Dick Treumann - MPI Team
IBM Systems & Technology Group
Dept X2ZA / MS P963 -- 2455 South Road -- Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Tele (845) 433-7846 Fax (845) 433-8363
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}