The semantics of open shmem's fetching atomics is the same as
MPI_Get_accumulate. The old value is returned *not* the new value. This
is not an uncommon semantic for atomic operations. So, no, I don't think
oshmem will be any better than MPI RMA for this use case.

To OP. Yes, you will have to either apply the reduction locally or
perform an MPI_Get if you are interested in the new value at the target
process on the origin process.

-Nathan

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:41:27PM -0400, Andy Riebs wrote:
>    Nick,
> 
>    You may have more luck looking into the OSHMEM layer of Open MPI; SHMEM is
>    designed for one-sided communications.
> 
>    BR,
>    Andy
> 
>    On 04/14/2015 02:36 PM, Nick Papior Andersen wrote:
> 
>      Dear all,
>      I am trying to implement some features using a one-sided communication
>      scheme.
>      The problem is that I understand the different one-sided communication
>      schemes as this (basic words):
>      MPI_Get) 
>      fetches remote window memory to a local memory space
>      MPI_Get_Accumulate) 
>      1. fetches remote window memory to a local memory space
>      2. sends a local memory space (different from that used in 1.) to the
>      remote window and does OP on those two quantities
>      MPI_Put)
>      sends local memory space to remote window memory
>      MPI_Accumulate)
>      sends a local memory space to the remote window and does OP on those two
>      quantities
>      (surprisingly the documentation says that this only works with windows
>      within the same node, note that MPI_Get_Accumulate does not say this
>      constraint)
>      ?)
>      Where is the function that fetches remotely and does operation in a
>      local memory space?
>      Do I really have to do MPI_Get to local memory, then do operation
>      manually? (no it is not difficult, but... ;) )
>      I would like this to exist:
>      MPI_Get_Reduce(origin,...,target,...,MPI_OP,...) 
>      When I just looked at the API names I thought Get_Accumulate did this,
>      but to my surprise that was not the case at all. :)
>      --
>      Kind regards Nick
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list
>  us...@open-mpi.org
>  Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>  Link to this post: 
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/04/26723.php

> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
> Link to this post: 
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/04/26724.php

Attachment: pgpPJGrGI7SyR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to