FWIW: I’ll be presenting “Mapping, Ranking, and Binding - Oh My!” at the OMPI BoF meeting at SC’16, for those who can attend. Will try to explain the rationale as well as the mechanics of the options
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Dave Love <d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote: > > Gilles Gouaillardet <gil...@rist.or.jp <mailto:gil...@rist.or.jp>> writes: > >> Bennet, >> >> >> my guess is mapping/binding to sockets was deemed the best compromise >> from an >> >> "out of the box" performance point of view. >> >> >> iirc, we did fix some bugs that occured when running under asymmetric >> cpusets/cgroups. >> >> if you still have some issues with the latest Open MPI version (2.0.1) >> and the default policy, >> >> could you please describe them ? > > I also don't understand why binding to sockets is the right thing to do. > Binding to cores seems the right default to me, and I set that locally, > with instructions about running OpenMP. (Isn't that what other > implementations do, which makes them look better?) > > I think at least numa should be used, rather than socket. Knights > Landing, for instance, is single-socket, so no gets no actual binding by > default. > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users > <https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users
