On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Chris Worley wrote:
>> I'm wondering why it's so easily repeatable by me, and those I work
>> with, and nobody else? I have another completely different
>> configuration w/ the same issue...
>
> It would hel
> So.. What is the problem with fork? The semantics of what should
> happen seem natural enough to me, the PD doesn't get copied to the
> child, so the MR stays with the parent. COW events on the pinned
> region must be resolved so that the physical page stays with the
> process that has pinn
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:11:36PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thank you explanation.
>
> >
> > > Can I this version already solved fork() + COW issue? if so, could you
> > > please explain what happen at fork. Obviously RDMA point to either parent
> > > or child page, not both. bu
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:22:20PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> As I said, it does mean that MPI can invalidate cached registrations for
> COWed memory, which might be useful in case a parent forks and then
> touches memory it used to use for RDMA, but I think that's the easier
> part of the fork
