On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science@gmail.com> wrote:
It spins because that is optimal for latency and how the shared-memory protocols work.

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:22 AM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science@gmail.com> wrote:
As blocking poll is largely incompatible with low-latency and shared-memory protocols, I don't think there is any implementation that is going to do a good job at this, since it would not be very appealing to the majority of MPI users.


On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:48 AM, Jed Brown <jed@jedbrown.org> wrote:
On the flipside, MPI would be more attractive to some
(latency-insensitive) users if the implementations were not so committed
to spinning.

I'm trying to have a bit contribution on preparing MPI for next generation of computing systems (Exascale). It seems current MPI implementations cares about latency and performance more than power. I believe future MPI implementations must consider power as a high priority goal so i'm doing something much similar to what @Jeff linked it as my MS.c thesis.
Thanks all,

______________________
Researcher
School of Computer Engineering
Iran University of Science and Technology