On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:27 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
Processor affinity is now implemented. You must ask for it via the
MCA
param "mpi_paffinity_alone". If this parameter is set to a nonzero
value, OMPI will assume that its job is alone on the nodes that it is
running on, and, if you have no
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:25:32PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Processor affinity is now implemented. You must ask for it via the MCA
> param "mpi_paffinity_alone". If this parameter is set to a nonzero
> value, OMPI will assume that its job is alone on the nodes that it is
> running on, and,
Processor affinity is now implemented. You must ask for it via the MCA
param "mpi_paffinity_alone". If this parameter is set to a nonzero
value, OMPI will assume that its job is alone on the nodes that it is
running on, and, if you have not oversubscribed the node, will bind MPI
processes to
This is one of the few topics that we didn't get to discuss last week.
I think there are two main parts -- an easy part and a hard part. :-)
Easy part: the processor affinity framework and its interface
Hard part: how and when this framework is invoked in Open MPI
Processor affinity framework
On Jul 20, 2005, at 2:26 AM, Matt Leininger wrote:
Any advice here from the Open MP community would also be
appreciated...
Please keep in mind we need this to work for both MPI+OpenMP and MPI
+pthread hybrid apps.
Yes, I think what we loosely concluded here is:
1. We'll have a framework
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:44 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Excellent. Seems like several people have thought of this at the same
> time (I was pinged about this by the IB vendors).
>
> I know that others on the team have more experience in this area than I
> do, so I personally welcome all inform
that came up
at the time.
Barbara
> [Original Message]
> From: Jeff Squyres
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Cc: Barbara Chapman
> Date: 7/18/2005 10:44:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [O-MPI devel] processor affinity
>
> Excellent. Seems like several people have thought of this at t
Excellent. Seems like several people have thought of this at the same
time (I was pinged about this by the IB vendors).
I know that others on the team have more experience in this area than I
do, so I personally welcome all information. I've read a few papers on
the topic (general/simplified
To add to this, I would suggest not coupling processor affinity and
memory locality at the component level. At some level you do need
to tie these together, but there are other components that also need
to be considered, such as NIC locality, and probably other things
too ...
Rich
On Jul 18, 20
We have currently Barbara Chapman from the University of Houston as a
guest scientist here at Stuttgart. Most of you might now, that Barbara
is working on compiler design and OpenMP issues. This afternoon she
dropped in my office and asked me, whether the Open MPI group has
thought/discussed pr
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 08:28 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2005, at 2:50 AM, Matt Leininger wrote:
>
> >> Generally speaking, if you launch <=N processes in a job on a node
> >> (where N == number of CPUs on that node), then we set processor
> >> affinity. We set each process's affinity
Did a little digging into this last night, and finally figured out what
you were getting at in your comments here. Yeah, I think an "affinity"
framework would definitely be the best approach - can handle both cpu
and memory, I imagine. Isn't clear how pressing that is as it is mostly
an optimizati
On Jul 18, 2005, at 6:28 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jul 18, 2005, at 2:50 AM, Matt Leininger wrote:
Generally speaking, if you launch <=N processes in a job on a node
(where N == number of CPUs on that node), then we set processor
affinity. We set each process's affinity to the CPU number ac
13 matches
Mail list logo
