On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:51 PM, David Singleton wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> --mca maffinity_libnuma_policy bind|preferred
>
> Yep, that appears to meet the Open MPI standards of maximal verbosity. :-)
LOL!
Yes, this "verbose" philosophy in the OMPI code base is pretty much my fault.
I tend to
On 12/14/2010 09:06 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Should we add an MCA parameter to switch between BIND and PREFERRED, and
perhaps default to BIND?
I'm not sure BIND should be the default for everyone - memory imbalanced jobs
might
page badly in this case. But, yes, we would like an MCA to choos
On Dec 13, 2010, at 4:22 PM, David Singleton wrote:
> I didnt see memory binding in their explicitly.
You're correct; sorry, I was just referring to some general slides that showed
some of the ideas that we're working on for next-generation affinity stuff.
But memory binding will be included a
On 12/14/2010 01:29 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Dec 10, 2010, at 4:56 PM, David Singleton wrote:
Is there any plan to support NUMA memory binding for tasks?
Yes.
For some details on what we're planning for affinity, see the BOF slides that I presented
at SC'10 on the OMPI web site (under "pu
On Dec 10, 2010, at 4:56 PM, David Singleton wrote:
> Is there any plan to support NUMA memory binding for tasks?
Yes.
For some details on what we're planning for affinity, see the BOF slides that I
presented at SC'10 on the OMPI web site (under "publications").
> Even with bind-to-core and me
