Re: [OMPI users] wrong core binding by openmpi-1.5.5

[Brice Goglin]

Here's a better patch. Still only compile tested :)
Brice


Le 11/04/2012 10:36, Brice Goglin a écrit :
> A quick look at the code seems to confirm my feeling. get/set_module()
> callbacks manipulate arrays of logical indexes, and they do not convert
> them back to physical indexes before binding.
>
> Here's a quick patch that may help. Only compile tested...
>
> Brice
>
>
>
> Le 11/04/2012 09:49, Brice Goglin a écrit :
>> Le 11/04/2012 09:06, tmish...@jcity.maeda.co.jp a écrit :
>>> Hi, Brice.
>>>
>>> I installed the latest hwloc-1.4.1.
>>> Here is the output of lstopo -p.
>>>
>>> [root@node03 bin]# ./lstopo -p
>>> Machine (126GB)
>>>   Socket P#0 (32GB)
>>>     NUMANode P#0 (16GB) + L3 (5118KB)
>>>       L2 (512KB) + L1 (64KB) + Core P#0 + PU P#0
>>>       L2 (512KB) + L1 (64KB) + Core P#1 + PU P#4
>>>       L2 (512KB) + L1 (64KB) + Core P#2 + PU P#8
>>>       L2 (512KB) + L1 (64KB) + Core P#3 + PU P#12
>> Ok then the cpuset of this numanode is 1111.
>>
>>>> [node03.cluster:21706] [[55518,0],0] odls:default:fork binding child
>>>> [[55518,1],0] to cpus 1111
>> So openmpi 1.5.4 is correct.
>>
>>>> [node03.cluster:04706] [[40566,0],0] odls:default:fork binding child
>>>> [[40566,1],0] to cpus 000f
>> And openmpi 1.5.5 is indeed wrong.
>>
>> Random guess: 000f is the bitmask made of hwloc *logical* indexes. hwloc
>> cpusets (used for binding) are internally made of hwloc *physical*
>> indexes (1111 here).
>>
>> Jeff, Ralph:
>> How does OMPI 1.5.5 build hwloc cpusets for binding? Are you doing
>> bitmap operations on hwloc object cpusets?
>> If yes, I don't know what's going wrong here.
>> If no, are you building hwloc cpusets manually by setting individual
>> bits from object indexes? If yes, you must use *physical* indexes to do so.
>>
>> Brice
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users


--- opal/mca/paffinity/hwloc/paffinity_hwloc_module.c.old	2012-04-11 10:19:36.766710073 +0200
+++ opal/mca/paffinity/hwloc/paffinity_hwloc_module.c	2012-04-11 11:13:52.930438083 +0200
@@ -164,9 +164,10 @@

 static int module_set(opal_paffinity_base_cpu_set_t mask)
 {
-    int i, ret = OPAL_SUCCESS;
+    int ret = OPAL_SUCCESS;
     hwloc_bitmap_t set;
     hwloc_topology_t *t;
+    hwloc_obj_t pu;

     /* bozo check */
     if (NULL == opal_hwloc_topology) {
@@ -178,10 +179,11 @@
     if (NULL == set) {
         return OPAL_ERR_OUT_OF_RESOURCE;
     }
-    hwloc_bitmap_zero(set);
-    for (i = 0; ((unsigned int) i) < OPAL_PAFFINITY_BITMASK_CPU_MAX; ++i) {
-        if (OPAL_PAFFINITY_CPU_ISSET(i, mask)) {
-            hwloc_bitmap_set(set, i);
+    for (pu = hwloc_get_obj_by_type(*t, HWLOC_OBJ_PU, 0);
+         pu && pu->logical_index < OPAL_PAFFINITY_BITMASK_CPU_MAX;
+         pu = pu->next_cousin) {
+        if (OPAL_PAFFINITY_CPU_ISSET(pu->logical_index, mask)) {
+            hwloc_bitmap_set(set, pu->os_index);
         }
     }

@@ -196,9 +198,10 @@

 static int module_get(opal_paffinity_base_cpu_set_t *mask)
 {
-    int i, ret = OPAL_SUCCESS;
+    int ret = OPAL_SUCCESS;
     hwloc_bitmap_t set;
     hwloc_topology_t *t;
+    hwloc_obj_t pu;

     /* bozo check */
     if (NULL == opal_hwloc_topology) {
@@ -218,9 +221,11 @@
         ret = OPAL_ERR_IN_ERRNO;
     } else {
         OPAL_PAFFINITY_CPU_ZERO(*mask);
-        for (i = 0; ((unsigned int) i) < 8 * sizeof(*mask); i++) {
-            if (hwloc_bitmap_isset(set, i)) {
-                OPAL_PAFFINITY_CPU_SET(i, *mask);
+        for (pu = hwloc_get_obj_by_type(*t, HWLOC_OBJ_PU, 0);
+             pu && pu->logical_index < 8 * sizeof(*mask);
+             pu = pu->next_cousin) {
+            if (hwloc_bitmap_isset(set, pu->os_index)) {
+                OPAL_PAFFINITY_CPU_SET(pu->logical_index, *mask);
             }
         }
     }