On Dec 17, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Eric Chamberland <eric.chamberl...@giref.ulaval.ca> wrote: > > Just to be clear: we *always* call MPI_Wait. Now the question was about > *when* to do it.
Ok. Remember that the various flavors of MPI_Test are acceptable, too. And it's ok to call MPI_Test*/MPI_Wait* with MPI_REQUEST_NULL (i.e., if an earlier Test/Wait completed a request and set it to MPI_REQUEST_NULL). > We did 2 different things: > > #1- ASAP after the MPI_Isend > #2- As late as possible, in a class destructor for example, which can occur a > while after other MPI_Irecv and MPI_Isend pairs have been issued. > > Is it true to tell that if there were message progression, the receiving side > can complete the MPI_Wait linked to the MPI_Irecv call, event if the sending > side have *not yet* called the MPI_Wait linked to the MPI_send ? That is certainly possible, yes. It depends on a bunch of factors, such as the underlying networking hardware, the length of the message, etc. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
