On Thu, Apr/29/2010 02:52:24PM, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
>  Hi Ethan,
> 
>  Bummer.  What does the following command show?
> 
>  sysctl -a | grep shm

In this case, I think the Solaris equivalent to sysctl is prctl, e.g.,

  $ prctl -i project group.staff
  project: 10: group.staff
  NAME    PRIVILEGE       VALUE    FLAG   ACTION                       RECIPIENT
  ...
  project.max-shm-memory
          privileged      3.92GB      -   deny                                 -
          system          16.0EB    max   deny                                 -
  project.max-shm-ids
          privileged        128       -   deny                                 -
          system          16.8M     max   deny                                 -
  ...

Is that the info you need?

-Ethan

> 
>  Thanks!
> 
>  --
>  Samuel K. Gutierrez
>  Los Alamos National Laboratory
> 
>  On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Ethan Mallove wrote:
> 
> > Hi Samuel,
> >
> > I'm trying to run off your HG clone, but I'm seeing issues with
> > c_hello, e.g.,
> >
> >  $ mpirun -mca mpi_common_sm sysv --mca btl self,sm,tcp --host 
> > burl-ct-v440-2,burl-ct-v440-2 -np 2 ./c_hello
> >  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  A system call failed during shared memory initialization that should
> >  not have.  It is likely that your MPI job will now either abort or
> >  experience performance degradation.
> >
> >    Local host:  burl-ct-v440-2
> >    System call: shmat(2)
> >    Process:     [[43408,1],1]
> >    Error:       Invalid argument (errno 22)
> >  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  ^Cmpirun: killing job...
> >
> >  $ uname -a
> >  SunOS burl-ct-v440-2 5.10 Generic_118833-33 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V440
> >
> > The same test works okay if I s/sysv/mmap/.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ethan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr/28/2010 07:16:12AM, Samuel K. Gutierrez wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Faster component initialization/finalization times is one of the main
> >> motivating factors of this work.  The general idea is to get away from
> >> creating a rather large backing file.  With respect to module bandwidth 
> >> and
> >> latency, mmap and sysv seem to be comparable - at least that is what my
> >> preliminary tests have shown.  As it stands, I have not come across a
> >> situation where the mmap SM component doesn't work or is slower.
> >>
> >> Hope that helps,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Samuel K. Gutierrez
> >> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:35 AM, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Samuel K. Gutierrez <sam...@lanl.gov>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> With Jeff and Ralph's help, I have completed a System V shared memory
> >>>> component for Open MPI.
> >>>
> >>> What is the motivation for this work ? Are there situations where the
> >>> mmap based SM component doesn't work or is slow(er) ?
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Bogdan
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> devel mailing list
> >>> de...@open-mpi.org
> >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> devel mailing list
> >> de...@open-mpi.org
> >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > de...@open-mpi.org
> > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list
>  de...@open-mpi.org
>  http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel

Reply via email to