From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54785) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UPgD3-0003Dl-2B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:36:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UPgD0-0007PL-T9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:36:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20152) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UPgD0-0007PF-LT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:36:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 23:37:00 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20130409203659.GA9471@redhat.com> References: <20130324155153.GA8597@redhat.com> <515F3160.4020007@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130409203409.GA9246@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130409203409.GA9246@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2] rdma: add a new IB_ACCESS_GIFT flag List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael R. Hines" Cc: Roland Dreier , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Yishai Hadas , LKML , Hal Rosenstock , Jason Gunthorpe , Sean Hefty , Christoph Lameter On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:34:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 04:17:36PM -0400, Michael R. Hines wrote: > > The userland part of the patch was missing (IBV_ACCESS_GIFT). > > > > I added flag that to /usr/include in addition to this patch and did > > a test RDMA migrate and it seems to work without any problems. > > > > I also removed the IBV_*_WRITE flags on the sender-side and > > activated cgroups with the "memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes" activated > > and the migration with RDMA also succeeded without any problems > > (both with *and* without GIFT also worked). > > > > Any additional tests you would like? > > > > > > - Michael > > RDMA can't really work with swap so not sure how that's relevant. > > Please check memory.usage_in_bytes - is it lower with > the GIFT flag? I think this is what we really care about. oh and no reason to set memsw.limit_in_bytes I think. > -- > MST