On Mar 5, 2015, at 6:32 AM, Alina Sklarevich <ali...@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote: > > If oob:ud was disabled then there was no call to ibv_fork_init() anywhere > else, right? If so, then this is why the messages went away.
Right. That's why I'm saying it doesn't seem like a PSM problem. (I don't know much about PSM, but I don't think it uses verbs...?) > The calls to ibv_fork_init() from the opal common verbs were pushed to the > master. One of the places a call was set is oob:ud, but if there is a call to > memory registering verbs before this place, then the call to it in oob:ud > would result in a failure. Yes, I think that is the exact question: why are these messages showing up because of oob:ud? It seems like the call sequences to ibv_fork_init() are not as understood as we thought they were. :-( I.e., it was presupposed that oob_ud was the first entity to call any verbs code (and by your commits, is supposed to be calling the common verbs code to call ibv_fork_init() early enough such that it won't be a problem). But either that is not the case, or ibv_fork_init() is failing for some other reason. These are the things that need to be figured out. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
