OSHMEM/MCA/SPML/UCX: v1.5 implement put_signal and put_signal_nbi #13568
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Roie Danino <[email protected]>
roiedanino
changed the title
| return res; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return mca_spml_ucx_signal_common(ctx, sig_addr, signal, sig_op, dst); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we need a fence here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not according to the v1.5 spec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not according to the v1.5 spec
can you pls elaborate why not needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, should we use non-blocking signal here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From v1.5 documentation, unless I missed something:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My bad, we do need a fence here
Signed-off-by: Roie Danino <[email protected]>
| return OSHMEM_ERROR; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return res; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe move the return to lines 1662/1658 directly?
| return res; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return mca_spml_ucx_signal_common(ctx, sig_addr, signal, sig_op, dst); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
need fence before this, to ensure ordering
| return res; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return mca_spml_ucx_signal_common(ctx, sig_addr, signal, sig_op, dst); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not according to the v1.5 spec
can you pls elaborate why not needed?
| return res; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return mca_spml_ucx_signal_common(ctx, sig_addr, signal, sig_op, dst); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, should we use non-blocking signal here?
4 participants
What?
Implements
mca_spml_ucx_put_signalandmca_spml_ucx_put_signal_nbfor OpenSHMEM signaling operations with UCX backend.Why
The put_signal operations are part of the OpenSHMEM 1.5 specification and were previously unimplemented (returning OSHMEM_ERR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED).