[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090911164247.GA6736@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:42:47 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jsquyres@...co.com,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] please pull ummunotify
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. but Corrent COW rule is, first touch process
> > > get copyed page and other process still own original page. I think it's
> > > unpecected behavior form RDMA.
> >
> > No, ummunotify doesn't really help that much with fork() + COW. If a
> > parent forks and then touches pages that are actively in use for RDMA,
> > then of course they get COWed and RDMA goes to the wrong memory (from
> > the point of view of the parent).
>
> So, Can we assume OpenMPI user process doesn't such thing?
>
> Parhaps, madvise(DONTFORK) or vfork() avoid this issue. but I'm not
> sure all program in the world do that.
>
MPI (or is it libibverbs?) marks all registered memory as DONTFORK.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists