On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 06:04:07PM -0400, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> Hi Gleb,
>
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > new madvice flag was implemented that allows userspace to mark certain
> > memory to not be copied to a child process. This memory is not mapped in
> > a child at all, no even VMA created for i
Hi Gleb,
Gleb Natapov wrote:
new madvice flag was implemented that allows userspace to mark certain
memory to not be copied to a child process. This memory is not mapped in
a child at all, no even VMA created for it. In the parent this memory is
Ah, that explain your previous mention of segfau
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:57:22PM -0400, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> gshipman wrote:
> >> The fork() problem is due to memory registration aggravated by
> >> registration cache. Memory registration in itself is a hack from
> >> the OS
> >> point of view, and you already know a lot about the variou
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:35:02PM -0400, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> Brian Barrett wrote:
> > On the other hand, since the MPI standard explicitly says you're not
> > allowed to call fork() or system() during the MPI application and
>
> Does it ? The MPI spec says that you should not access buf
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 12:30:51PM -0400, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > Moving to devel; this question seems worthwhile to push out to the
> > general development community.
> >
> > I've been coming across an increasing number of customers and other
> > random OMPI users wh
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:20:35AM -0600, Brian Barrett wrote:
> On the other hand, since the MPI standard explicitly says you're not
> allowed to call fork() or system() during the MPI application and
> sense the network should really cope with this in some way, if it
> further complicates t
gshipman wrote:
The fork() problem is due to memory registration aggravated by
registration cache. Memory registration in itself is a hack from
the OS
point of view, and you already know a lot about the various problems
related to registration cache.
So Gleb is indicating that this is a probl
The fork() problem is due to memory registration aggravated by
registration cache. Memory registration in itself is a hack from
the OS
point of view, and you already know a lot about the various problems
related to registration cache.
So Gleb is indicating that this is a problem in the pipeli
Brian Barrett wrote:
On the other hand, since the MPI standard explicitly says you're not
allowed to call fork() or system() during the MPI application and
Does it ? The MPI spec says that you should not access buffers that have
been committed to MPI (pending asynchronous send or recv buffe
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Moving to devel; this question seems worthwhile to push out to the
general development community.
I've been coming across an increasing number of customers and other
random OMPI users who use system(). So if there's zero impact on
performance and it doesn't make the co
On the other hand, since the MPI standard explicitly says you're not
allowed to call fork() or system() during the MPI application and
sense the network should really cope with this in some way, if it
further complicates the code *at all*, I'm strongly against it.
Especially since it won't
Moving to devel; this question seems worthwhile to push out to the
general development community.
I've been coming across an increasing number of customers and other
random OMPI users who use system(). So if there's zero impact on
performance and it doesn't make the code [more] incredibly
12 matches
Mail list logo
