Indeed. As indicated on the other thread if I add the novm and hetero and specify both the --bind-to and --map-by I get the expected behavior.
Thanks, George. On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 2:14 PM, r...@open-mpi.org <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > I didn’t define the default behaviors - I just implemented what everyone > said they wanted, as eventually captured in a Google spreadsheet Jeff > posted (and was available and discussed for weeks before implemented). So > the defaults are: > > * if np <= 2, we map-by core bind-to core > > * if np > 2, we map-by socket bind-to socket > > In your case, you chose to specify a change in the binding pattern, but > you left the mapping pattern to be the default. With 3 procs, that means > you mapped by socket, and bound to core. ORTE did exactly what you told it > to do (intentionally or not). > > If you want the behavior you describe, then you simply tell ORTE to > “--map-by core --bind-to core” > > On Sep 5, 2016, at 11:05 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:34 AM, r...@open-mpi.org <r...@open-mpi.org> > wrote: > >> Interesting - well, it looks like ORTE is working correctly. The map is >> what you would expect, and so is planned binding. >> >> What this tells us is that we are indeed binding (so far as ORTE is >> concerned) to the correct places. Rank 0 is being bound to 0,8, and that is >> what the OS reports. Rank 1 is bound to 4,12, and rank 2 is bound to 1,9. >> All of this matches what the OS reported. >> >> So it looks like it is report-bindings that is messed up for some reason. >> > > Ralph, > > I have a hard time agreeing with you here. The binding you find correct > is, from a performance point of view, terrible. Why would anybody want a > process to be bound to 2 cores on different sockets ? > > Please help me with the following exercise. How do I bind each process to > a single core, allocated in a round robin fashion (such as rank 0 on core > 0, rank 1 on core 1 and rank 2 on core 2) ? > > George. > > > >> >> >> On Sep 3, 2016, at 7:14 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> >> $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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
