Gilles,
Sorry for confusing you.
My understanding is:
MPI_WIN_FENCE has four roles regarding access/exposure epochs.
- end access epoch
- end exposure epoch
- start access epoch
- start exposure epoch
In order to end access/exposure epochs, a barrier is not needed
in the MPI implementa
Kawashima-san,
i am confused ...
as you wrote :
In the MPI_MODE_NOPRECEDE case, a barrier is not necessary
in the MPI implementation to end access/exposure epochs.
and the test case calls MPI_Win_fence with MPI_MODE_NOPRECEDE.
are you saying Open MPI implementation of MPI_Win_fence should
Hi Gilles, Nathan,
No, my conclusion is that the MPI program does not need a MPI_Barrier
but MPI implementations need some synchronizations.
Thanks,
Takahiro Kawashima,
> Kawashima-san,
>
> Nathan reached the same conclusion (see the github issue) and i fixed
> the test
> by manually adding a
Kawashima-san,
Nathan reached the same conclusion (see the github issue) and i fixed
the test
by manually adding a MPI_Barrier.
Cheers,
Gilles
On 4/21/2015 10:20 AM, Kawashima, Takahiro wrote:
Hi Gilles, Nathan,
I read the MPI standard but I think the standard doesn't
require a barrier in
Hi Gilles, Nathan,
I read the MPI standard but I think the standard doesn't
require a barrier in the test program.
>From the standards (11.5.1 Fence) :
A fence call usually entails a barrier synchronization:
a process completes a call to MPI_WIN_FENCE only after all
other processes in th
Hi Rolf,
yes, same issue ...
i attached a patch to the github issue ( the issue might be in the test).
From the standards (11.5 Synchronization Calls) :
"TheMPI_WIN_FENCE collective synchronization call supports a simple
synchroniza-
tion pattern that is often used in parallel computations: na
Hi Gilles:
Is your failure similar to this ticket?
https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/issues/393
Rolf
From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Gilles Gouaillardet
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 9:12 AM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: [OMPI devel] c_accumulate
Folks,
i (sometimes
