[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515F3A0F.5030507@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:54:39 -0400
From: "Michael R. Hines" <mrhines@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] rdma: add a new IB_ACCESS_GIFT flag
To be more specific, here's what I did:
1. apply kernel module patch - re-insert module
1. QEMU does: ibv_reg_mr(........IBV_ACCESS_GIFT | IBV_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ)
2. Start the RDMA migration
3. Migration completes without any errors
This test does *not* work with a cgroup swap limit, however. The process
gets killed. (Both with and without GIFT)
- Michael
On 04/05/2013 04:43 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Michael R. Hines
> <mrhines@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> I also removed the IBV_*_WRITE flags on the sender-side and activated
>> cgroups with the "memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes" activated and the migration
>> with RDMA also succeeded without any problems (both with *and* without GIFT
>> also worked).
> Not sure I'm interpreting this correctly. Are you saying that things
> worked without actually setting the GIFT flag? In which case why are
> we adding this flag?
>
> - R.
>
--
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