Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 14:37:12 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: Re: MPI vs. --fork

On 3 May, 2013, at 14:33 , Solar Designer <> wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:14:43PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> I tried this but I can't just use the original rec_restore_args(1) because it tries to give each MPI process an exclusive lock, which fails.
> Why does it fail?  Doesn't each MPI process use its own .rec file?  If
> not, then how are they supposed to work (and allow for --restore)?

Sure they have, but they fail when all of them is trying to read the main, unnumbered, session file when restoring. This is no problem for -fork because it hasn't forked yet. MPI has all "children" already running!


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.