From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Wise Subject: Re: Problem with RDMA device removal architecture Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:58:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4BACF5B8.7090304@opengridcomputing.com> References: <4BACD985.1070906@opengridcomputing.com> <4BACE28A.2080409@opengridcomputing.com> <603F8A3875DCE940BA37B49D0A6EA0AE84CFD851@azsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com> <4BACE7E8.3040803@opengridcomputing.com> <603F8A3875DCE940BA37B49D0A6EA0AE84CFD8DD@azsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <603F8A3875DCE940BA37B49D0A6EA0AE84CFD8DD-uLM7Qlg6Mbekrb+BlOpmy7fspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Tung, Chien Tin" Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , Roland Dreier , linux-rdma List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > But to Roland's point, how will we ummap resources? > If an application won't respond to device removal event and clean up properly, > perhaps it is "okay" to let it crash. Alternatively, what about a > RDMA_CM_EVENT_DEVICE_REMOVAL_PENDING and RDMA_CM_EVENT_DEVICE_REMOVED scheme. > Post the first event to allow good applications to clean up. The second event > to notify apps that the device is "gone". After the second event, we can then > get violent and shoot to kill? > You probably don't need the two events as you can detect when the apps free up these resources anyway. So your proposal boils down to: post the DEVICE_REMOVAL/ DEVICE_FATAL events, and wait some amount of time. After said timeout, you fire a SIGBUS at each process still owning resources for the device in question. Roland, is that terrible in your opinion? -- 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