Re: [OMPI users] MPI one-sided passive synchronization.

Sudheer, Locks in MPI don't mean mutexes, they mark the beginning and end of a passive mode communication epoch. All MPI operations within an epoch logically occur concurrently and must be non-conflicting. So, what you're written below is incorrect: the get is not guaranteed to complete

Re: [OMPI users] MPI one-sided passive synchronization.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > This is mostly an issue of how MPICH2 and Open MPI implement lock/unlock. > Some might call what I'm about to describe erroneous. I wrote the > one-sided code in Open MPI and may be among those people. > > In both

Re: [OMPI users] MPI one-sided passive synchronization.

This is mostly an issue of how MPICH2 and Open MPI implement lock/unlock. Some might call what I'm about to describe erroneous. I wrote the one-sided code in Open MPI and may be among those people. In both implementations, one-sided communication is not necessarily truly asynchronous. That is,

[OMPI users] MPI one-sided passive synchronization.

Hello, I am trying to better understand the semantics of passive synchronization in one-sided communication calls. Doesn't MPI_Win_unlock() block to ensure that all the preceeding RMA calls in that epoch have been synced? In that case, why is an undefined value returned when trying to load from a