> Quoting Gleb Natapov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC] sharing userspace IB objects > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:02:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Quoting Gleb Natapov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC] sharing userspace IB objects > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:58:02PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > No, sharing a send queue must be done in software. I don't really > > > > > > see the reason > > > > > > for sarcasm: do you see value in sharing resources between multiple > > > > > > threads? > > > > > > Why not multiple processes? Some people just don't want to program > > > > > > in multithreaded environment. > > > > > > > > > > Yes I see the value in sharing resources between threads and processes > > > > > if done right. This proposition is far from being right. > > > > > > > > Ahem, *what* are you talking about? Sharing resources between threads > > > > was supported in > > > > libibverbs 1.0, *right from the start*. This is still the case with > > > > 1.1, and this API > > > > matches verbs quite closely which means that it can work pretty much on > > > > any > > > > hardware. > > > > > > Why do you think that I have a problem with multithreaded application is > > > beyond my understanding. I have a problem with you thinking that peaking a > > > completion by random process in FCFS order is a good idea. > > > > Should that have been "picking"? I keep telling you. With multithreaded > Yes "picking". Sorry :) > > > applications *that's what currently happens*. If multiple threads poll a CQ, > > which one gets which completion is currently unspecified. Are you > > worried about this? If not, why are you worried when multiple > > processes do this? > You've missed my sentence about difference between multithreaded > application and what you propose. The difference is HUGE (I can't write > bigger letters sorry about that). I can design a multithreaded MPI so > that each thread will be capable to progress MPI send/recv request (and then > I don't care what thread gets which completion. I can't do it with > multiprocess > scenario.
Well, with shared memory, the difference between thread and process is not that huge. And with the proposed API, you will be able to do just that. -- MST _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
