On Jan 9, 2015, at 12:39 PM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote:
> I totally agree with Dave here. Moreover, based on the logic exposed by Jeff, > there is no right solution because if one choose to first wait on the receive > requests this also leads to a deadlock as the send requests might not be > progressed. Nah, you could MPI_WAITALL on *all* the requests. :-) But regardless: Dave and I chatted on the phone and he convinced me that you guys (Dave+George) are correct. That being said, the concept fairness is not defined in MPI, such that a given implementation's optimization choices *could* make subtle differences in fairness of progression of requests listed in the WAITALL vs. requests not listed in the WAITALL. So YMMV with regards to performance portability. But regardless of even that: like I said before, it's likely to always work in reality. :-) -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
