From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Nov 13 10:27:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 2E15BCA5FE5; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:27:56 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70ACFCA343B for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:27:55 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:43491) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1L0YUV-0001zo-NN (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:27:55 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1L0YUV-0005MJ-7e (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:27:55 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 13 Nov 2008 09:27:55 +0000 Date: 13 Nov 2008 09:27:55 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3672) (j3.2006) N1755: Request for new features from MPI Forum Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20081113070009.97717C178D9@www2.open-std.org> References: <49137AD3.1070402@lrz.de> <20081111224927.8201CC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081111234923.517C5C178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081112001017.26EB3C178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081112091351.6581CC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081113032342.3E36AC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081113070009.97717C178D9@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Nov 13 2008, Malcolm Cohen wrote: > >can argue as to whether it usually is or not). >> If you call an external I/O routine, like MPI, and it works >> asynchronously, there is no difference with Fortran ASYNCHRONOUS I/O > >Well ... yes and no. The optimisation implications are in fact somewhat >different (and I'm not sure whether MPI-2's design is consistent with >ASYNC). I think that we need to discuss that! I was thinking of to MPI-1 non-blocking transfers, which are. When writing my MPI course, I looked at a range of MPI applications (PARPACK, CASINO, CETEP/CASTEP/ONETEP, CPMD, FFTW, SPOOLES, ScaLAPACK, CFX-11 and FLUENT), and the only ones that used MPI-2 one-sided calls were the last two. I didn't have the source, so can't tell you how they used them. Six of those used MPI-1 non-blocking calls. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679