This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
Yes, I think the mmap code in the sm btl actually has a sync point inside add_procs that when the root allocs and sets up the area, it'll locally broadcast a "yes, we're good -- mmap attach and let's continue" or "bad things happened; sm btl is broke" message.
But I am not confident about the other BTLs.
On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> George Bosilca wrote:
> > We did assume that at least the errors are symmetric, i.e. if A fails
> > to connect to B then B will fail when trying to connect to A.
> I've not been following this thread closely, but thought I'd add a comment.
> It used to be that the sm BTL could fail asymmetrically. A shared
> memory could be allocated and processes start to allocate resources
> within shared memory. At some point, the shared area would be
> exhausted. So, some processes were set up to communicate to others, but
> the others would not be able to communicate back via the same BTL. I
> think this led to much brokenness. (E.g., how would a process return a
> sm fragment to a sender?)
> At this point, my recollection of those issues is very fuzzy.
> In any case, I think those issues went away with the shared-memory work
> I did a while back. The size of the area is now computed to be large
> enough that each process's initial allocation would succeed.
> devel mailing list
For corporate legal information go to: