Re: [ofa-general] Re: [GIT PULL] please pull ummunotify

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>]

> 
>  > So.. What is the problem with fork? The semantics of what should
>  > happen seem natural enough to me, the PD doesn't get copied to the
>  > child, so the MR stays with the parent. COW events on the pinned
>  > region must be resolved so that the physical page stays with the
>  > process that has pinned it - the pin is logically released in the
>  > child because the MR doesn't exist because the PD doesn't exist.
> 
> This is getting away from the problem that ummunotify is solving, but
> handling a COW fault generated by the parent by doing the copy in the
> child seems like a pretty major, tricky change to make.  The child may
> have forked 100 more times in the meantime, meaning we now have to
> change 101 memory maps ... the cost of page faults goes through the roof
> probably...

Ummm...
Perhaps my first question was wrong. I'm not intent to NAK your patch.
I merely want to know your patch detail...

ok, I ask you again as another word.

 - I guess you have your MPI implementaion w/ ummunotify, right?
 - I guess you have test sevaral pattern, right?
   if so, can we see your test result?
 - I think you can explain your MPI advantage/disadvantage against
   current OpenMPI (or mpich et al).
 - I guess your patch dramatically improve MPI implementaion, but
   it's not free. it request some limitation to MPI application, right?
 - I imagine multi thread and fork. Is there another linmitaion?
 - In past discuttion, you said ummunotify user should not use
   multi threading. you also think user should not fork?



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html