Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Big MPI--RMA functionality #99

Closed
tonyskjellum opened this issue Jun 14, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Big MPI--RMA functionality #99

tonyskjellum opened this issue Jun 14, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@tonyskjellum
Copy link

@tonyskjellum tonyskjellum commented Jun 14, 2018

Problem

For 64-bit clean functionality, convenience, and symmetry, the Big MPI principles being applied in Ticket #80 to collective operations should be applied to MPI RMA functionality.

Proposal

64-bit clean versions of RMA operations will be provided.

Changes to the Text

New APIs and descriptions with suffix _X will be added to support 64-bit clean operations for RMA chapter.

Impact on Implementations

Implementations will have to support the new API plus any internal changes to support larger transfers.

Impact on Users

Users who opt in to the new API will be able to do larger RMA transfers.

References

Tickets #80, #97, #98 are closely related.

PR mpi-forum/mpi-standard#62

RMA WG Issue to cross-correlate: mpiwg-rma/rma-issues#7

@tonyskjellum
Copy link
Author

@tonyskjellum tonyskjellum commented Sep 29, 2018

Here is the initial version of the text:

mpi32-report-ticket99-29sep18-1207.pdf

@tonyskjellum
Copy link
Author

@tonyskjellum tonyskjellum commented Oct 4, 2018

@wesbland
Copy link
Member

@wesbland wesbland commented Oct 7, 2020

@tonyskjellum / @puribangalore - Is this issue replaced by #137? Can we close this?

@puribangalore
Copy link

@puribangalore puribangalore commented Oct 7, 2020

@wesbland wesbland closed this Oct 7, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants