Thanks Brice,
bottom line, even if hwloc is not fully ported, it should build and ompi
should get something usable.
in this case, i have no objection removing the --without-hwloc configure
option.
you can contact me off-list regarding the FX10 specific issue
Cheers,
Gilles
On 9/4/2015 2:31 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
Le 04/09/2015 00:36, Gilles Gouaillardet a écrit :
Ralph,
just to be clear, your proposal is to abort if openmpi is configured
with --without-hwloc, right ?
( the --with-hwloc option is not removed because we want to keep the
option of using an external hwloc library )
if I understand correctly, Paul's point is that if openmpi is ported
to a new architecture for which hwloc has not been ported yet
(embedded hwloc or external hwloc), then the very first step is to
port hwloc before ompi can be built.
did I get it right Paul ?
Brice, what would happen in such a case ?
embedded hwloc cannot be built ?
hwloc returns little or no information ?
If it's a new operating system and it supports at least things like
sysconf, you will get a Machine object with one PUs per logical processor.
If it's a new platform running Linux, they are supposed to tell Linux
at least package/core/thread information. That's what we have for ARM
for instance.
Missing topology detection can be worked around easily (with XML and
synthetic description, what we did for BlueGene/Q before adding manual
support for that specific processor). Binding support can't.
And once you get binding, you get x86-topology even if the operating
system isn't supported (using cpuid).
for example, on Fujitsu FX10 node (single socket, 16 cores), hwloc
reports 16 sockets with one core each and no cache. though this is
not correct, that can be seen as equivalent to the real config by
ompi, so this is not really an issue for ompi.
Can you help fixing this?
The issue is indeed with supercomputers with uncommon architectures
like this one.
Brice
Cheers,
Gilles
On Friday, September 4, 2015, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org
<mailto:r...@open-mpi.org>> wrote:
No - hwloc is embedded in OMPI anyway.
On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','phhargr...@lbl.gov');>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','r...@open-mpi.org');>> wrote:
Does anyone know of a reason why we shouldn’t do this?
Would doing this mean that a port to a new system would require
that one first perform a full hwloc port?
-Paul
--
Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','phhargr...@lbl.gov');>
Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group
Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','de...@open-mpi.org');>
Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Link to this post:
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17942.php
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
Subscription:http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Link to this
post:http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17952.php
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Link to this post:
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17958.php
