So everyone hates SYSV. Ok. :-)
Given that part of the problems we've been having with mmap have been
due to filesystem issues, should we just unlink() the file once all
processes have mapped it? I believe we didn't do that originally for
two reasons:
- leave it around for debugging purposes
- possibly supporting MPI-2 dynamics someday
We still don't support the sm BTL for dynamics, so why not unlink()?
(I'm probably forgetting something obvious...?)
On Apr 1, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 11:00 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 3:45 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
> > System V shared memory used to be the main way to do shared
memory on
> > MPICH and from my (little) experience, this was truly painful :
> > - Cleanup issues : does shmctl(IPC_RMID) solve _all_ cases ?
(even
> > kill
> > -9 ?)
> Indeed. The one saving grace here is that the cleanup issues
> apparently can be solved on Linux with a special flag that indicates
> "automatically remove this shmem when all processes attaching to it
> have died." That was really the impetus for [re-]investigating sysv
> shm. I, too, remember the sysv pain because we used it in LAM,
too...
Unless there is something newer than IPC_RMID that I haven't heard of
this is far from a complete solution, setting RMID causes it to be
deleted when the attach count becomes zero so it handles the kill -9
case however it has the down side that once it's been set no further
processes can attach to the memory so you have to leave a window
during
init during which any crash will leave the memory.
I've always been of the opinion that mmaping shared files was a much
more advanced solution.
Ashley Pittman.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
