Done in r24126
On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:11 AM, Damien Guinier wrote:
> oups
>
> Ok, you can commit it. All problem is on "procs" word, on source code,
> "processes" AND "cores" definition is used.
>
>
> Le 01/12/2010 11:37, Damien Guinier a écrit :
>> Ok, you can commit it. All problem is on "pro
oups
Ok, you can commit it. All problem is on "procs" word, on source code,
"processes" AND "cores" definition is used.
Le 01/12/2010 11:37, Damien Guinier a écrit :
Ok, you can commit it. All problem is on "procs" work, on source code,
"processes" AND "cores" definition is used.
Thank you
Ok, you can commit it. All problem is on "procs" work, on source code,
"processes" AND "cores" definition is used.
Thank you for your help.
Damien
Le 01/12/2010 10:47, Ralph Castain a écrit :
I just checked and it appears bycore does correctly translate to byslot. So
your patch does indeed ap
I just checked and it appears bycore does correctly translate to byslot. So
your patch does indeed appear to be correct. If you don't mind, I'm going to
apply it for you as I'm working on a correction for how we handle oversubscribe
flags, and I want to ensure the patch gets included so we compu
Afraid I don't speak much slurm any more (thank goodness!).
>From your output, It looks like the system is mapping bynode instead of
>byslot. IIRC, isn't bycore just supposed to be a pseudonym for byslot? So
>perhaps the problem is that "bycore" causes us to set the "bynode" flag by
>mistake. D
hi all,
Many time, there are no difference between "proc" and "slot". But when
you use "mpirun -cpus-per-proc X", slot have X procs.
On orte/mca/rmaps/base/rmaps_base_common_mappers.c, there are a
confusion between proc and slot. this little error impact mapping action:
On OMPI last version w
