> > That is it. That is all our allowed interaction with the users process.
>
> OK, when you said something along the lines of "the MPT library has
> control of the comm buffer", then I assumed it was an area of virtual
> memory which is set up as part of initialization, rather than during
> runt
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:52:41PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2008 18:21, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 05:11:32PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > You are missing one point here. The MPI specifications that have
> > > > been out there for decades do not
> > > > Can you change the spec?
> > >
> > > Not really. It will break all existing codes.
> >
> > I meant as in eg. submit changes to MPI-3
>
> MPI spec tries to be backward compatible. And MPI-2 spec is 10 years
> old, but MPI-1 is still in a wider use. HPC is moving fast in terms of HW
> techno
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:52:41PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 February 2008 18:21, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 05:11:32PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > You are missing one point here. The MPI specifications that have
> > > > been out there for decades do not
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 18:21, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 05:11:32PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > You are missing one point here. The MPI specifications that have
> > > been out there for decades do not require the process use a library
> > > for allocating the buffer. I
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 05:11:32PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > You are missing one point here. The MPI specifications that have
> > been out there for decades do not require the process use a library
> > for allocating the buffer. I realize that is a horrible shortcoming,
> > but that is the wo
On Thursday 21 February 2008 21:58, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:20:02PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > So why can't you export a device from your xpmem driver, which
> > > > can be mmap()ed to give out "anonymous" memory pages to be used
> > > > for these communication buffers
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:20:02PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > So why can't you export a device from your xpmem driver, which
> > > can be mmap()ed to give out "anonymous" memory pages to be used
> > > for these communication buffers?
> >
> > Because we need to have heap and stack available as
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 20:00, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:51:45PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:12, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > For XPMEM, we do not currently allow file backed
> > > mapping pages from being exported so we should never reach th
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:00:36AM -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:51:45PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:12, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > For XPMEM, we do not currently allow file backed
> > > mapping pages from being exported so we should never rea
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:51:45PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:12, Robin Holt wrote:
> > For XPMEM, we do not currently allow file backed
> > mapping pages from being exported so we should never reach this condition.
> > It has been an issue since day 1. We have op
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 14:12, Robin Holt wrote:
> For XPMEM, we do not currently allow file backed
> mapping pages from being exported so we should never reach this condition.
> It has been an issue since day 1. We have operated with that assumption
> for 6 years and have not had issues wit
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:55:20AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Friday 15 February 2008 17:49, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > These special additional callbacks are required because XPmem (and likely
> > other mechanisms) do use their own rmap (multiple processes on a series
> > of remote Linux ins
On Friday 15 February 2008 17:49, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> These special additional callbacks are required because XPmem (and likely
> other mechanisms) do use their own rmap (multiple processes on a series
> of remote Linux instances may be accessing the memory of a process).
> F.e. XPmem may ha
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > +#define mmu_rmap_notifier(function, args...)
> > \
> > + do {\
> > + struct mmu_rmap_notifier *__mrn;\
> > + struc
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:49:04 -0800 Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These special additional callbacks are required because XPmem (and likely
> other mechanisms) do use their own rmap (multiple processes on a series
> of remote Linux instances may be accessing the memory of a process
16 matches
Mail list logo
