$mpirun -np 3 --tag-output --bind-to core --report-bindings --display-devel-map --mca rmaps_base_verbose 10 true
[dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0]: Final mapper priorities > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] Mapper: ppr Priority: 90 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] Mapper: seq Priority: 60 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] Mapper: resilient Priority: 40 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] Mapper: mindist Priority: 20 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] Mapper: round_robin Priority: 10 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] Mapper: staged Priority: 5 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] Mapper: rank_file Priority: 0 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps: mapping job [41198,1] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps: setting mapping policies for job > [41198,1] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps[153] mapping not set by user - using > bysocket > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:ppr: job [41198,1] not using ppr > mapper PPR NULL policy PPR NOTSET > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:seq: job [41198,1] not using seq > mapper > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:resilient: cannot perform initial > map of job [41198,1] - no fault groups > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:mindist: job [41198,1] not using > mindist mapper > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:rr: mapping job [41198,1] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] AVAILABLE NODES FOR MAPPING: > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc00 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc01 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc02 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc03 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc04 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc05 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc06 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc07 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] node: arc08 daemon: NULL > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:rr: mapping no-span by Package for > job [41198,1] slots 180 num_procs 3 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:rr: found 2 Package objects on node > arc00 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:rr: calculated nprocs 20 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:rr: assigning nprocs 20 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:base: computing vpids by slot for > job [41198,1] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 0 to node arc00 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 1 to node arc00 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps:base: assigning rank 2 to node arc00 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps: compute bindings for job [41198,1] > with policy CORE[4008] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] reset_usage: node arc00 has 3 > procs on it > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] reset_usage: ignoring proc > [[41198,1],0] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] reset_usage: ignoring proc > [[41198,1],1] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] reset_usage: ignoring proc > [[41198,1],2] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] bind_depth: 5 map_depth 1 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] mca:rmaps: bind downward for job [41198,1] > with bindings CORE > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] GOT 1 CPUS > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] PROC [[41198,1],0] BITMAP 0,8 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] BOUND PROC [[41198,1],0][arc00] > TO socket 0[core 0[hwt 0-1]]: [BB/../../..][../../../.. > ] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] GOT 1 CPUS > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] PROC [[41198,1],1] BITMAP 4,12 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] BOUND PROC [[41198,1],1][arc00] > TO socket 1[core 4[hwt 0-1]]: [../../../..][BB/../../.. > ] > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] GOT 1 CPUS > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] PROC [[41198,1],2] BITMAP 1,9 > [dancer.icl.utk.edu:17451] [[41198,0],0] BOUND PROC [[41198,1],2][arc00] > TO socket 0[core 1[hwt 0-1]]: [../BB/../..][../../../.. > ] > [1,0]<stderr>:[arc00:07612] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0[hwt 0]], > socket 0[core 8[hwt 0]]: [B./../../../../../../../B./.. > ][../../../../../../../../../..] > [1,1]<stderr>:[arc00:07612] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 0[core 4[hwt 0]], > socket 1[core 12[hwt 0]]: [../../../../B./../../../../. > .][../../B./../../../../../../..] > [1,2]<stderr>:[arc00:07612] MCW rank 2 bound to socket 0[core 1[hwt 0]], > socket 0[core 9[hwt 0]]: [../B./../../../../../../../B. > ][../../../../../../../../../..] On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 9:44 AM, r...@open-mpi.org <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > Okay, can you add --display-devel-map --mca rmaps_base_verbose 10 to your > cmd line? > > It sounds like there is something about that topo that is bothering the > mapper > > On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:31 PM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > > Thanks Gilles, that's a very useful trick. The bindings reported by ORTE > are in sync with the one reported by the OS. > > $ mpirun -np 2 --tag-output --bind-to core --report-bindings grep > Cpus_allowed_list /proc/self/status > [1,0]<stderr>:[arc00:90813] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0[hwt 0]], > socket 0[core 4[hwt 0]]: [B./../../../B./../../../../.. > ][../../../../../../../../../..] > [1,1]<stderr>:[arc00:90813] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 1[core 10[hwt 0]], > socket 1[core 14[hwt 0]]: [../../../../../../../../../.. > ][B./../../../B./../../../../..] > [1,0]<stdout>:Cpus_allowed_list: 0,8 > [1,1]<stdout>:Cpus_allowed_list: 1,9 > > George. > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet < > gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> George, >> >> I cannot help much with this i am afraid >> >> My best bet would be to rebuild OpenMPI with --enable-debug and an >> external recent hwloc (iirc hwloc v2 cannot be used in Open MPI yet) >> >> You might also want to try >> mpirun --tag-output --bind-to xxx --report-bindings grep >> Cpus_allowed_list /proc/self/status >> >> So you can confirm both openmpi and /proc/self/status report the same >> thing >> >> Hope this helps a bit ... >> >> Gilles >> >> >> George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> While investigating the ongoing issue with OMPI messaging layer, I run >> into some troubles with process binding. I read the documentation, but I >> still find this puzzling. >> >> Disclaimer: all experiments were done with current master (9c496f7) >> compiled in optimized mode. The hardware: a single node 20 core >> Xeon E5-2650 v3 (hwloc-ls is at the end of this email). >> >> First and foremost, trying to bind to NUMA nodes was a sure way to get a >> segfault: >> >> $ mpirun -np 2 --mca btl vader,self --bind-to numa --report-bindings true >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------- >> No objects of the specified type were found on at least one node: >> >> Type: NUMANode >> Node: arc00 >> >> The map cannot be done as specified. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------- >> [dancer:32162] *** Process received signal *** >> [dancer:32162] Signal: Segmentation fault (11) >> [dancer:32162] Signal code: Address not mapped (1) >> [dancer:32162] Failing at address: 0x3c >> [dancer:32162] [ 0] /lib64/libpthread.so.0[0x3126a0f7e0] >> [dancer:32162] [ 1] /home/bosilca/opt/trunk/fast/l >> ib/libopen-rte.so.0(+0x560e0)[0x7f9075bc60e0] >> [dancer:32162] [ 2] /home/bosilca/opt/trunk/fast/l >> ib/libopen-rte.so.0(orte_grpcomm_API_xcast+0x84)[0x7f9075bc6f54] >> [dancer:32162] [ 3] /home/bosilca/opt/trunk/fast/l >> ib/libopen-rte.so.0(orte_plm_base_orted_exit+0x1a8)[0x7f9075bd9308] >> [dancer:32162] [ 4] /home/bosilca/opt/trunk/fast/l >> ib/openmpi/mca_plm_rsh.so(+0x384e)[0x7f907361284e] >> [dancer:32162] [ 5] /home/bosilca/opt/trunk/fast/l >> ib/libopen-rte.so.0(orte_state_base_check_all_complete+0x324 >> )[0x7f9075bedca4] >> [dancer:32162] [ 6] /home/bosilca/opt/trunk/fast/l >> ib/libopen-pal.so.0(opal_libevent2022_event_base_loop+0x53c) >> [0x7f90758eafec] >> [dancer:32162] [ 7] mpirun[0x401251] >> [dancer:32162] [ 8] mpirun[0x400e24] >> [dancer:32162] [ 9] /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_ >> main+0xfd)[0x312621ed1d] >> [dancer:32162] [10] mpirun[0x400d49] >> [dancer:32162] *** End of error message *** >> Segmentation fault >> >> As you can see on the hwloc output below, there are 2 NUMA nodes on the >> node and HWLOC correctly identifies them, making OMPI error message >> confusing. Anyway, we should not segfault but report a more meaning error >> message. >> >> Binding to slot (I got this from the man page for 2.0) is apparently not >> supported anymore. Reminder: We should update the manpage accordingly. >> >> Trying to bind to core looks better, the application at least starts. >> Unfortunately the reported bindings (or at least my understanding of these >> bindings) are troubling. Assuming that the way we report the bindings is >> correct, why are my processes assigned to 2 cores far apart each ? >> >> $ mpirun -np 2 --mca btl vader,self --bind-to core --report-bindings true >> [arc00:39350] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 8[hwt 0]]: [B./../../../../../../../B./..][../../../../../../../../../..] >> [arc00:39350] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 0[core 1[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 9[hwt 0]]: [../B./../../../../../../../B.][../../../../../../../../../..] >> >> Maybe because I only used the binding option. Adding the mapping to the >> mix (--map-by option) seem hopeless, the binding remains unchanged for 2 >> processes. >> >> $ mpirun -np 2 --mca btl vader,self --bind-to core --report-bindings true >> [arc00:40401] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 8[hwt 0]]: [B./../../../../../../../B./..][../../../../../../../../../..] >> [arc00:40401] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 0[core 1[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 9[hwt 0]]: [../B./../../../../../../../B.][../../../../../../../../../..] >> >> At this point I really wondered what is going on. To clarify I tried to >> launch 3 processes on the node. Bummer ! the reported binding shows that >> one of my processes got assigned to cores on different sockets. >> >> $ mpirun -np 3 --mca btl vader,self --bind-to core --report-bindings true >> [arc00:40311] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 8[hwt 0]]: [B./../../../../../../../B./..][../../../../../../../../../..] >> [arc00:40311] MCW rank 2 bound to socket 0[core 1[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 9[hwt 0]]: [../B./../../../../../../../B.][../../../../../../../../../..] >> [arc00:40311] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 0[core 4[hwt 0]], socket 1[core >> 12[hwt 0]]: [../../../../B./../../../../..][../../B./../../../../../../. >> .] >> >> Why is rank 1 on core 4 and rank 2 on core 1 ? Maybe specifying the >> mapping will help. Will I get a more sensible binding (as suggested by our >> online documentation and the man pages) ? >> >> $ mpirun -np 3 --mca btl vader,self --bind-to core --map-by core >> --report-bindings true >> [arc00:40254] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 8[hwt 0]]: [B./../../../../../../../B./..][../../../../../../../../../..] >> [arc00:40254] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 0[core 1[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 9[hwt 0]]: [../B./../../../../../../../B.][../../../../../../../../../..] >> [arc00:40254] MCW rank 2 bound to socket 0[core 2[hwt 0]], socket 1[core >> 10[hwt 0]]: [../../B./../../../../../../..][B./../../../../../../../../. >> .] >> >> There is a difference. The logical rank of processes is now respected but >> one of my processes is still bound to 2 cores on different sockets, but >> these cores are different from the case when the mapping was not specified. >> >> Trying to bind on sockets I got an even more confusing outcome. So I went >> the hard way, what can go wrong if I manually define the binding via a >> rankfile ? Fail ! My processes continue to report an unsettling bindings >> (there is some relationship with my rank file but most of the issues I >> reported above still remain). >> >> $ more rankfile >> rank 0=arc00 slot=0 >> rank 1=arc00 slot=2 >> $ mpirun -np 2 --mca btl vader,self -rf rankfile --report-bindings true >> [arc00:40718] MCW rank 0 bound to socket 0[core 0[hwt 0]], socket 0[core >> 8[hwt 0]]: [B./../../../../../../../B./..][../../../../../../../../../..] >> [arc00:40718] MCW rank 1 bound to socket 0[core 2[hwt 0]], socket 1[core >> 10[hwt 0]]: [../../B./../../../../../../..][B./../../../../../../../../. >> .] >> >> At this point I got pretty much completely confused with how OMPI binding >> works. I'm counting on a good samaritan to explain how this works. >> >> Thanks, >> George. >> >> PS: rankfile feature of using relative hostnames (+n?) seems to be busted >> as the example from the man page leads to the following complaint >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------- >> A relative host was specified, but no prior allocation has been made. >> Thus, there is no way to determine the proper host to be used. >> >> hostfile entry: +n0 >> >> Please see the orte_hosts man page for further information. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------------- >> >> >> $ hwloc-ls >> Machine (63GB) >> NUMANode L#0 (P#0 31GB) >> Socket L#0 + L3 L#0 (25MB) >> L2 L#0 (256KB) + L1d L#0 (32KB) + L1i L#0 (32KB) + Core L#0 >> PU L#0 (P#0) >> PU L#1 (P#20) >> L2 L#1 (256KB) + L1d L#1 (32KB) + L1i L#1 (32KB) + Core L#1 >> PU L#2 (P#1) >> PU L#3 (P#21) >> L2 L#2 (256KB) + L1d L#2 (32KB) + L1i L#2 (32KB) + Core L#2 >> PU L#4 (P#2) >> PU L#5 (P#22) >> L2 L#3 (256KB) + L1d L#3 (32KB) + L1i L#3 (32KB) + Core L#3 >> PU L#6 (P#3) >> PU L#7 (P#23) >> L2 L#4 (256KB) + L1d L#4 (32KB) + L1i L#4 (32KB) + Core L#4 >> PU L#8 (P#4) >> PU L#9 (P#24) >> L2 L#5 (256KB) + L1d L#5 (32KB) + L1i L#5 (32KB) + Core L#5 >> PU L#10 (P#5) >> PU L#11 (P#25) >> L2 L#6 (256KB) + L1d L#6 (32KB) + L1i L#6 (32KB) + Core L#6 >> PU L#12 (P#6) >> PU L#13 (P#26) >> L2 L#7 (256KB) + L1d L#7 (32KB) + L1i L#7 (32KB) + Core L#7 >> PU L#14 (P#7) >> PU L#15 (P#27) >> L2 L#8 (256KB) + L1d L#8 (32KB) + L1i L#8 (32KB) + Core L#8 >> PU L#16 (P#8) >> PU L#17 (P#28) >> L2 L#9 (256KB) + L1d L#9 (32KB) + L1i L#9 (32KB) + Core L#9 >> PU L#18 (P#9) >> PU L#19 (P#29) >> NUMANode L#1 (P#1 31GB) >> Socket L#1 + L3 L#1 (25MB) >> L2 L#10 (256KB) + L1d L#10 (32KB) + L1i L#10 (32KB) + Core L#10 >> PU L#20 (P#10) >> PU L#21 (P#30) >> L2 L#11 (256KB) + L1d L#11 (32KB) + L1i L#11 (32KB) + Core L#11 >> PU L#22 (P#11) >> PU L#23 (P#31) >> L2 L#12 (256KB) + L1d L#12 (32KB) + L1i L#12 (32KB) + Core L#12 >> PU L#24 (P#12) >> PU L#25 (P#32) >> L2 L#13 (256KB) + L1d L#13 (32KB) + L1i L#13 (32KB) + Core L#13 >> PU L#26 (P#13) >> PU L#27 (P#33) >> L2 L#14 (256KB) + L1d L#14 (32KB) + L1i L#14 (32KB) + Core L#14 >> PU L#28 (P#14) >> PU L#29 (P#34) >> L2 L#15 (256KB) + L1d L#15 (32KB) + L1i L#15 (32KB) + Core L#15 >> PU L#30 (P#15) >> PU L#31 (P#35) >> L2 L#16 (256KB) + L1d L#16 (32KB) + L1i L#16 (32KB) + Core L#16 >> PU L#32 (P#16) >> PU L#33 (P#36) >> L2 L#17 (256KB) + L1d L#17 (32KB) + L1i L#17 (32KB) + Core L#17 >> PU L#34 (P#17) >> PU L#35 (P#37) >> L2 L#18 (256KB) + L1d L#18 (32KB) + L1i L#18 (32KB) + Core L#18 >> PU L#36 (P#18) >> PU L#37 (P#38) >> L2 L#19 (256KB) + L1d L#19 (32KB) + L1i L#19 (32KB) + Core L#19 >> PU L#38 (P#19) >> PU L#39 (P#39) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
