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.
I believe it is definitely a no-no to STORE (write) into a send buffer
while a send is posted. I know there have been debate in the forum to
relax LOADS (reads) from a send buffer. I think OMPI can handle the
latter case (LOADS). On the posted receive side you open yourself up
for some race conditions and overwrites if you do STORES or LOADS from a
posted receive buffer.
Alberto Canestrelli wrote:
> I have a problem with a fortran code that I have parallelized with
> MPI. I state in advance that I read the whole ebook "Mit Press - Mpi -
> The Complete Reference, Volume 1" and I took different MPI classes, so
> I have a discrete MPI knowledge. I was able to solve by myself all the
> errors I bumped into but now I am not able to find the bug of my code
> that provides erroneous results. Without entering in the details of my
> code, I think that the cause of the problem could be reletad to the
> following aspect highlighted in the above ebook (in the follow I copy
> and paste from the e-book):
> A nonblocking post-send call indicates that the system may start
> copying data
> out of the send buffer. The sender must not access any part of the
> send buffer
> (neither for loads nor for STORES) after a nonblocking send operation
> is posted until
> the complete send returns.
> A nonblocking post-receive indicates that the system may start writing
> data into
> the receive buffer. The receiver must not access any part of the
> receive buffer after
> a nonblocking receive operation is posted, until the complete-receive
> Rationale. We prohibit read accesses to a send buffer while it is
> being used, even
> though the send operation is not supposed to alter the content of this
> buffer. This
> may seem more stringent than necessary, but the additional restriction
> causes little
> loss of functionality and allows better performance on some systems-
> the case where data transfer is done by a DMA engine that is not
> with the main processor.End of rationale.
> I use plenty of nonblocking post-send in my code. Is it really true
> that the sender must not access any part of the send buffer not even
> for STORES? Or was it a MPI 1.0 issue?
> users mailing list
Terry D. Dontje | Principal Software Engineer
Developer Tools Engineering | +1.650.633.7054
Oracle * - Performance Technologies*
95 Network Drive, Burlington, MA 01803
Email terry.dontje_at_[hidden] <mailto:terry.dontje_at_[hidden]>