On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > Greg Lindahl wrote: >>> now that I'm inventorying ignorance, I don't really understand why RDMA >>> always seems to be presented as a big hardware issue. wouldn't it be >>> pretty easy to define an eth or IP-level protocol to do remote puts, >>> gets, even test-and-set or reduce primitives, where the interrupt handler >>> could twiddle registered blobs of user memory on the target side? >>> >> >> That approach is called Active Messages, and can be bolted on to >> pretty much every messaging implementation. Doesn't OpenMX provide >> that kind of interface? >> > > Open-MX offers what MX offers: no explicit RDMA interface, only 2-sided. > But something similar to a remote get is used internally for large > messages. It wouldn't be hard to mplement some RDMA-like features in > such a software-only model like Mark said above. > > Brice
Don't forget the unexpected handler which can provide some Active Message behavior. Scott _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
