Hello,
I am trying to run applications on a shared-memory machine. For the
moment I am just trying to run tests on point-to-point communications (a
trivial token ring) and collective operations (from the SkaMPI tests
suite).
It runs smoothly if mpi_paffinity_alone is set to 0. For a number
Hi Camille
What OMPI version are you using? We just changed the paffinity module
last night, but did nothing to maffinity. However, it is possible that
the maffinity framework makes some calls into paffinity that need to
adjust.
So version number would help a great deal in this case.
Tha
Ralph,
I compiled a clean checkout from the trunk (r19392), the problem is
still the same.
Camille
Ralph Castain a écrit :
Hi Camille
What OMPI version are you using? We just changed the paffinity module
last night, but did nothing to maffinity. However, it is possible that
the maffinit
Okay, I'll look into it. I suspect the problem is due to the
redefinition of the paffinity API to clarify physical vs logical
processors - more than likely, the maffinity interface suffers from
the same problem we had to correct over there.
We'll report back later with an estimate of how qu
OK, thank you!
Camille
Ralph Castain a écrit :
Okay, I'll look into it. I suspect the problem is due to the
redefinition of the paffinity API to clarify physical vs logical
processors - more than likely, the maffinity interface suffers from the
same problem we had to correct over there.
We
I believe I have found the problem, and it may indeed relate to the
change in paffinity. By any chance, do you have unfilled sockets on
that machine? Could you provide the output from something like "cat /
proc/cpuinfo" (or the equiv for your system) so we could see what
physical processors
Back on Mon 1st Sept
If action is required before then ...
please contact Rob Giddings (Catia/VPM/HDMS issues)
For Nastran/CAE technical S/W, Chris Catchpole can help.
For Elecricad, Chris Toyne can help.
Ralph,
How does OpenMPI pick up the map between physical vs. logical
processors?Does OMPI look into "/sys/devices/system/node/node for
the cpu topology?
Thanks,
Mi Yan
Ralph Castain
Actually, I have tried with several versions, since you were working on
the affinity thing. I have tried with revision 19103 a couple a weeks
ago, the problem was already there.
Part of /proc/cpuinfo is below:
processor : 0
vendor : GenuineIntel
arch : IA-64
family : Itanium 2
Short answer is: yes.
Unfortunately, different systems store that info in different places.
For Linux, we use the PLPA to help us discover the required info.
Solaris, OSX, and Windows all have their own ways of providing it. The
paffinity framework detects the type of system we are running
Thanks! Well, it -is- nice to know that we didn't -create- the problem
with the paffinity change!
We'll have to think about this one a little to try and figure out why
this is happening.
Ralph
On Aug 22, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Camille Coti wrote:
Actually, I have tried with several versions,
Camile --
Can you also send the output of "uname -a"?
Also, just to be absoultely sure, let's check that PLPA is doing the
Right thing here (we don't think this is problem, but it's worth
checking). Grab the latest beta:
http://www.open-mpi.org/software/plpa/v1.2/
It's a very small p
inria@behemoth:~$ uname -a
Linux behemoth 2.6.5-7.283-sn2 #1 SMP Wed Nov 29 16:55:53 UTC 2006 ia64
ia64 ia64 GNU/Linux
I am not sure the output of plpa-info --topo gives good news...
inria@behemoth:~$ plpa-info --topo
Kernel affinity support: yes
Kernel topology support: no
Number of processo
Ah, this is a fairly kernel -- it does not support the topology stuff.
So in this case, logical and physical IDs should be the same. Hmm.
Need to think about that...
On Aug 22, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Camille Coti wrote:
inria@behemoth:~$ uname -a
Linux behemoth 2.6.5-7.283-sn2 #1 SMP Wed Nov
14 matches
Mail list logo
