Hi Ralph,
Thank you for your fix. It works for me.
Tetsuya Mishima
> Actually, it looks like it would happen with hetero-nodes set - only
required that at least two nodes have the same architecture. So you might
want to give the trunk a shot as it may well now be
> fixed.
>
>
> On Dec 19, 201
Hi Ralph,
The numa-node in AMD Mangy-Cours/Interlagos is so called cc(cache
coherent)NUMA,
which seems to be a little bit different from the traditional numa defined
in openmpi.
I notice that ccNUMA object is almost same as L3cache object.
So "-bind-to l3cache" or "-map-by l3cache" is valid for
I don't think there's any such difference.
Also, all these NUMA architectures are reported the same by hwloc, and
therefore used the same in Open MPI.
And yes, L3 and NUMA are topologically-identical on AMD Magny-Cours (and
most recent AMD and Intel platforms).
Brice
Le 20/12/2013 11:33, tmish
Hi Brice,
Thank you for your comment. I understand what you mean.
My opinion was made just considering easy way to adjust the code for
inversion of hierarchy in object tree.
Tetsuya Mishima
> I don't think there's any such difference.
> Also, all these NUMA architectures are reported the sam
I'll make it work so that NUMA can be either above or below socket
On Dec 20, 2013, at 2:57 AM, tmish...@jcity.maeda.co.jp wrote:
>
>
> Hi Brice,
>
> Thank you for your comment. I understand what you mean.
>
> My opinion was made just considering easy way to adjust the code for
> inversion of
Hooray!
On Dec 19, 2013, at 10:14 PM, tmish...@jcity.maeda.co.jp wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> Thank you for your fix. It works for me.
>
> Tetsuya Mishima
>
>
>> Actually, it looks like it would happen with hetero-nodes set - only
> required that at least two nodes have the same architecture.
Funny, but I couldn't find the code path that supported that in the latest 1.6
series release (didn't check earlier ones) - but no matter, it seems logical
enough. Fixed in the trunk and cmr'd to 1.7.4
Thanks!
Ralph
On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:08 PM, Tim Miller wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
>
> That's correc
Hi Ed
FWIW: Intel MPI has better thread support, though you'll lose some features. I
don't know what NICs you have, but have you tried running with the MTL's
instead of the openib BTL? Both the psm and mxm MTLs are supposed to be thread
safe, and will outperform the openib BTL anyway.
Not sure
Hi Ralph, I'm glad to hear that, thanks.
By the way, yesterday I tried to check how lama in 1.7.4rc treat numa node.
Then, even wiht this simple command line, it freezed without any massage:
mpirun -np 2 -host node05 -mca rmaps lama myprog
Could you check what happened?
Is it better to ope
I'll try to take a look at it - my expectation is that lama might get stuck
because you didn't tell it a pattern to map, and I doubt that code path has
seen much testing.
On Dec 20, 2013, at 5:52 PM, tmish...@jcity.maeda.co.jp wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ralph, I'm glad to hear that, thanks.
>
> By the
Hi Ralph,
Thank you very much. I tried many things such as:
mpirun -np 2 -host node05 -report-bindings -mca rmaps lama -mca
rmaps_lama_bind 1c myprog
But every try failed. At least they were accepted by openmpi-1.7.3 as far
as I remember.
Anyway, please check it when you have a time, because u
11 matches
Mail list logo
