On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Jeff Hammond <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 http://webpages.iust.ac.ir/msharifi/dslab.html