Oh my - that is a pretty strong statement. It depends on what you are trying to do, and whether or not Slurm offers a mapping pattern that matches. mpirun tends to have a broader range of options, which is why many people use it. It also means that your job script is portable and not locked to a specific RM, which is important to quite a few users.
However, if Slurm has something you can use/like and you don't need to worry about portability, then by all means one should use it. Just don't assume that everyone fits in that box :-) On Oct 11, 2021, at 10:40 AM, Chang Liu via users <users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> > wrote: OK thank you. Seems that srun is a better option for normal users. Chang On 10/11/21 1:23 PM, Ralph Castain via users wrote: Sorry, your output wasn't clear about cores vs hwthreads. Apparently, your Slurm config is setup to use hwthreads as independent cpus - what you are calling "logical cores", which is a little confusing. No, mpirun has no knowledge of what mapping pattern you passed to salloc. We don't have any good way of obtaining config information, for one thing - e.g., that Slurm is treating hwthreads as cpus. So we can't really interpret what they might have done. Given this clarification, you can probably get what you want with: mpirun --use-hwthread-cpus --map-by hwthread:pe=2 ..." On Oct 11, 2021, at 7:35 AM, Chang Liu via users <users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> >> wrote: This is not what I need. The cpu can run 4 threads per core, so "--bind-to core" results in one process occupying 4 logical cores. I want one process to occupy 2 logical cores, so two processes sharing a physical core. I guess there is a way to do that by playing with mapping. I just want to know if this is a bug in mpirun, or this feature for interacting with slurm was never implemented. Chang On 10/11/21 10:07 AM, Ralph Castain via users wrote: You just need to tell mpirun that you want your procs to be bound to cores, not socket (which is the default). Add "--bind-to core" to your mpirun cmd line On Oct 10, 2021, at 11:17 PM, Chang Liu via users <users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> ><mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org <mailto:users@lists.open-mpi.org> >>> wrote: Yes they are. This is an interactive job from salloc -N 1 --ntasks-per-node=64 --cpus-per-task=2 --gpus-per-node=4 --gpu-mps --time=24:00:00 Chang On 10/11/21 2:09 AM, Åke Sandgren via users wrote: On 10/10/21 5:38 PM, Chang Liu via users wrote: OMPI v4.1.1-85-ga39a051fd8 % srun bash -c "cat /proc/self/status|grep Cpus_allowed_list" Cpus_allowed_list: 58-59 Cpus_allowed_list: 106-107 Cpus_allowed_list: 110-111 Cpus_allowed_list: 114-115 Cpus_allowed_list: 16-17 Cpus_allowed_list: 36-37 Cpus_allowed_list: 54-55 ... % mpirun bash -c "cat /proc/self/status|grep Cpus_allowed_list" Cpus_allowed_list: 0-127 Cpus_allowed_list: 0-127 Cpus_allowed_list: 0-127 Cpus_allowed_list: 0-127 Cpus_allowed_list: 0-127 Cpus_allowed_list: 0-127 Cpus_allowed_list: 0-127 ... Was that run in the same batch job? If not, the data is useless. -- Chang Liu Staff Research Physicist +1 609 243 3438 c...@pppl.gov <mailto:c...@pppl.gov> <mailto:c...@pppl.gov <mailto:c...@pppl.gov> ><mailto:c...@pppl.gov <mailto:c...@pppl.gov> <mailto:c...@pppl.gov <mailto:c...@pppl.gov> >> Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 100 Stellarator Rd, Princeton NJ 08540, USA -- Chang Liu Staff Research Physicist +1 609 243 3438 c...@pppl.gov <mailto:c...@pppl.gov> <mailto:c...@pppl.gov <mailto:c...@pppl.gov> > Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 100 Stellarator Rd, Princeton NJ 08540, USA -- Chang Liu Staff Research Physicist +1 609 243 3438 c...@pppl.gov <mailto:c...@pppl.gov> Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 100 Stellarator Rd, Princeton NJ 08540, USA
