Is this something that needs to go into v1.10.1? If so, a PR needs to be filed ASAP. We were supposed to make the next 1.10.1 RC yesterday, but slipped to today due to some last second patches.
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:32 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gil...@rist.or.jp> wrote: > > Marcin, > > here is a patch for the master, hopefully it fixes all the issues we discussed > i will make sure it applies fine vs latest 1.10 tarball from tomorrow > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > > On 10/6/2015 7:22 PM, marcin.krotkiewski wrote: >> Gilles, >> >> Yes, it seemed that all was fine with binding in the patched 1.10.1rc1 - >> thank you. Eagerly waiting for the other patches, let me know and I will >> test them later this week. >> >> Marcin >> >> >> >> On 10/06/2015 12:09 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote: >>> Marcin, >>> >>> my understanding is that in this case, patched v1.10.1rc1 is working just >>> fine. >>> am I right ? >>> >>> I prepared two patches >>> one to remove the warning when binding on one core if only one core is >>> available, >>> an other one to add a warning if the user asks a binding policy that makes >>> no sense with the required mapping policy >>> >>> I will finalize them tomorrow hopefully >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gilles >>> >>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, marcin.krotkiewski >>> <marcin.krotkiew...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, Gilles >>>> you mentionned you had one failure with 1.10.1rc1 and -bind-to core >>>> could you please send the full details (script, allocation and output) >>>> in your slurm script, you can do >>>> srun -N $SLURM_NNODES -n $SLURM_NNODES --cpu_bind=none -l grep >>>> Cpus_allowed_list /proc/self/status >>>> before invoking mpirun >>>> >>> It was an interactive job allocated with >>> >>> salloc --account=staff --ntasks=32 --mem-per-cpu=2G --time=120:0:0 >>> >>> The slurm environment is the following >>> >>> SLURM_JOBID=12714491 >>> SLURM_JOB_CPUS_PER_NODE='4,2,5(x2),4,7,5' >>> SLURM_JOB_ID=12714491 >>> SLURM_JOB_NODELIST='c1-[2,4,8,13,16,23,26]' >>> SLURM_JOB_NUM_NODES=7 >>> SLURM_JOB_PARTITION=normal >>> SLURM_MEM_PER_CPU=2048 >>> SLURM_NNODES=7 >>> SLURM_NODELIST='c1-[2,4,8,13,16,23,26]' >>> SLURM_NODE_ALIASES='(null)' >>> SLURM_NPROCS=32 >>> SLURM_NTASKS=32 >>> SLURM_SUBMIT_DIR=/cluster/home/marcink >>> SLURM_SUBMIT_HOST=login-0-1.local >>> SLURM_TASKS_PER_NODE='4,2,5(x2),4,7,5' >>> >>> The output of the command you asked for is >>> >>> 0: c1-2.local Cpus_allowed_list: 1-4,17-20 >>> 1: c1-4.local Cpus_allowed_list: 1,15,17,31 >>> 2: c1-8.local Cpus_allowed_list: 0,5,9,13-14,16,21,25,29-30 >>> 3: c1-13.local Cpus_allowed_list: 3-7,19-23 >>> 4: c1-16.local Cpus_allowed_list: 12-15,28-31 >>> 5: c1-23.local Cpus_allowed_list: 2-4,8,13-15,18-20,24,29-31 >>> 6: c1-26.local Cpus_allowed_list: 1,6,11,13,15,17,22,27,29,31 >>> >>> Running with command >>> >>> mpirun --mca rmaps_base_verbose 10 --hetero-nodes --bind-to core >>> --report-bindings --map-by socket -np 32 ./affinity >>> >>> I have attached two output files: one for the original 1.10.1rc1, one for >>> the patched version. >>> >>> When I said 'failed in one case' I was not precise. I got an error on node >>> c1-8, which was the first one to have different number of MPI processes on >>> the two sockets. It would also fail on some later nodes, just >>> that because of the error we never got there. >>> >>> Let me know if you need more. >>> >>> Marcin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gilles >>>> >>>> On 10/4/2015 11:55 PM, marcin.krotkiewski wrote: >>>>> Hi, all, >>>>> >>>>> I played a bit more and it seems that the problem results from >>>>> >>>>> trg_obj = opal_hwloc_base_find_min_bound_target_under_obj() >>>>> >>>>> called in rmaps_base_binding.c / bind_downwards being wrong. I do not >>>>> know the reason, but I think I know when the problem happens (at least on >>>>> 1.10.1rc1). It seems that by default openmpi maps by socket. The error >>>>> happens when for a given compute node there is a different number of >>>>> cores used on each socket. Consider previously studied case (the debug >>>>> outputs I sent in last post). c1-8, which was source of error, has 5 mpi >>>>> processes assigned, and the cpuset is the following: >>>>> >>>>> 0, 5, 9, 13, 14, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30 >>>>> >>>>> Cores 0,5 are on socket 0, cores 9, 13, 14 are on socket 1. Binding >>>>> progresses correctly up to and including core 13 (see end of file >>>>> out.1.10.1rc2, before the error). That is 2 cores on socket 0, and 2 >>>>> cores on socket 1. Error is thrown when core 14 should be bound - extra >>>>> core on socket 1 with no corresponding core on socket 0. At that point >>>>> the returned trg_obj points to the first core on the node (os_index 0, >>>>> socket 0). >>>>> >>>>> I have submitted a few other jobs and I always had an error in such >>>>> situation. Moreover, if I now use --map-by core instead of socket, the >>>>> error is gone, and I get my expected binding: >>>>> >>>>> rank 0 @ compute-1-2.local 1, 17, >>>>> rank 1 @ compute-1-2.local 2, 18, >>>>> rank 2 @ compute-1-2.local 3, 19, >>>>> rank 3 @ compute-1-2.local 4, 20, >>>>> rank 4 @ compute-1-4.local 1, 17, >>>>> rank 5 @ compute-1-4.local 15, 31, >>>>> rank 6 @ compute-1-8.local 0, 16, >>>>> rank 7 @ compute-1-8.local 5, 21, >>>>> rank 8 @ compute-1-8.local 9, 25, >>>>> rank 9 @ compute-1-8.local 13, 29, >>>>> rank 10 @ compute-1-8.local 14, 30, >>>>> rank 11 @ compute-1-13.local 3, 19, >>>>> rank 12 @ compute-1-13.local 4, 20, >>>>> rank 13 @ compute-1-13.local 5, 21, >>>>> rank 14 @ compute-1-13.local 6, 22, >>>>> rank 15 @ compute-1-13.local 7, 23, >>>>> rank 16 @ compute-1-16.local 12, 28, >>>>> rank 17 @ compute-1-16.local 13, 29, >>>>> rank 18 @ compute-1-16.local 14, 30, >>>>> rank 19 @ compute-1-16.local 15, 31, >>>>> rank 20 @ compute-1-23.local 2, 18, >>>>> rank 29 @ compute-1-26.local 11, 27, >>>>> rank 21 @ compute-1-23.local 3, 19, >>>>> rank 30 @ compute-1-26.local 13, 29, >>>>> rank 22 @ compute-1-23.local 4, 20, >>>>> rank 31 @ compute-1-26.local 15, 31, >>>>> rank 23 @ compute-1-23.local 8, 24, >>>>> rank 27 @ compute-1-26.local 1, 17, >>>>> rank 24 @ compute-1-23.local 13, 29, >>>>> rank 28 @ compute-1-26.local 6, 22, >>>>> rank 25 @ compute-1-23.local 14, 30, >>>>> rank 26 @ compute-1-23.local 15, 31, >>>>> >>>>> Using --map-by core seems to fix the issue on 1.8.8, 1.10.0 and >>>>> 1.10.1rc1. However, there is still a difference in behavior between >>>>> 1.10.1rc1 and earlier versions. In the SLURM job described in last post, >>>>> 1.10.1rc1 fails to bind only in 1 case, while the earlier versions fail >>>>> in 21 out of 32 cases. You mentioned there was a bug in hwloc. Not sure >>>>> if it can explain the difference in behavior. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps to nail this down. >>>>> >>>>> Marcin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/04/2015 09:55 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote: >>>>>> Ralph, >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect ompi tries to bind to threads outside the cpuset. >>>>>> this could be pretty similar to a previous issue when ompi tried to bind >>>>>> to cores outside the cpuset. >>>>>> /* when a core has more than one thread, would ompi assume all the >>>>>> threads are available if the core is available ? */ >>>>>> I will investigate this from tomorrow >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Gilles >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, October 4, 2015, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>>>>> Thanks - please go ahead and release that allocation as I’m not going to >>>>>> get to this immediately. I’ve got several hot irons in the fire right >>>>>> now, and I’m not sure when I’ll get a chance to track this down. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gilles or anyone else who might have time - feel free to take a gander >>>>>> and see if something pops out at you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2015, at 11:05 AM, marcin.krotkiewski >>>>>>> <marcin.krotkiew...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Done. I have compiled 1.10.0 and 1.10.rc1 with --enable-debug and >>>>>>> executed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mpirun --mca rmaps_base_verbose 10 --hetero-nodes --report-bindings >>>>>>> --bind-to core -np 32 ./affinity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In case of 1.10.rc1 I have also added :overload-allowed - output in a >>>>>>> separate file. This option did not make much difference for 1.10.0, so >>>>>>> I did not attach it here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First thing I noted for 1.10.0 are lines like >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [login-0-1.local:03399] [[37945,0],0] GOT 1 CPUS >>>>>>> [login-0-1.local:03399] [[37945,0],0] PROC [[37945,1],27] BITMAP >>>>>>> [login-0-1.local:03399] [[37945,0],0] PROC [[37945,1],27] ON c1-26 IS >>>>>>> NOT BOUND >>>>>>> >>>>>>> with an empty BITMAP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SLURM environment is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> set | grep SLURM >>>>>>> SLURM_JOBID=12714491 >>>>>>> SLURM_JOB_CPUS_PER_NODE='4,2,5(x2),4,7,5' >>>>>>> SLURM_JOB_ID=12714491 >>>>>>> SLURM_JOB_NODELIST='c1-[2,4,8,13,16,23,26]' >>>>>>> SLURM_JOB_NUM_NODES=7 >>>>>>> SLURM_JOB_PARTITION=normal >>>>>>> SLURM_MEM_PER_CPU=2048 >>>>>>> SLURM_NNODES=7 >>>>>>> SLURM_NODELIST='c1-[2,4,8,13,16,23,26]' >>>>>>> SLURM_NODE_ALIASES='(null)' >>>>>>> SLURM_NPROCS=32 >>>>>>> SLURM_NTASKS=32 >>>>>>> SLURM_SUBMIT_DIR=/cluster/home/marcink >>>>>>> SLURM_SUBMIT_HOST=login-0-1.local >>>>>>> SLURM_TASKS_PER_NODE='4,2,5(x2),4,7,5' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have submitted an interactive job on screen for 120 hours now to work >>>>>>> with one example, and not change it for every post :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you need anything else, let me know. I could introduce some >>>>>>> patch/printfs and recompile, if you need it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marcin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/03/2015 07:17 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>>>>>> Rats - just realized I have no way to test this as none of the >>>>>>>> machines I can access are setup for cgroup-based multi-tenant. Is this >>>>>>>> a debug version of OMPI? If not, can you rebuild OMPI with >>>>>>>> —enable-debug? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then please run it with —mca rmaps_base_verbose 10 and pass along the >>>>>>>> output. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What version of slurm is this? I might try to debug it here. I’m not >>>>>>>>> sure where the problem lies just yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2015, at 8:59 AM, marcin.krotkiewski >>>>>>>>>> <marcin.krotkiew...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here is the output of lstopo. In short, (0,16) are core 0, (1,17) - >>>>>>>>>> core 1 etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Machine (64GB) >>>>>>>>>> NUMANode L#0 (P#0 32GB) >>>>>>>>>> Socket L#0 + L3 L#0 (20MB) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#0 (256KB) + L1d L#0 (32KB) + L1i L#0 (32KB) + Core L#0 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#0 (P#0) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#1 (P#16) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#1 (256KB) + L1d L#1 (32KB) + L1i L#1 (32KB) + Core L#1 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#2 (P#1) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#3 (P#17) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#2 (256KB) + L1d L#2 (32KB) + L1i L#2 (32KB) + Core L#2 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#4 (P#2) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#5 (P#18) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#3 (256KB) + L1d L#3 (32KB) + L1i L#3 (32KB) + Core L#3 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#6 (P#3) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#7 (P#19) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#4 (256KB) + L1d L#4 (32KB) + L1i L#4 (32KB) + Core L#4 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#8 (P#4) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#9 (P#20) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#5 (256KB) + L1d L#5 (32KB) + L1i L#5 (32KB) + Core L#5 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#10 (P#5) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#11 (P#21) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#6 (256KB) + L1d L#6 (32KB) + L1i L#6 (32KB) + Core L#6 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#12 (P#6) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#13 (P#22) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#7 (256KB) + L1d L#7 (32KB) + L1i L#7 (32KB) + Core L#7 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#14 (P#7) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#15 (P#23) >>>>>>>>>> HostBridge L#0 >>>>>>>>>> PCIBridge >>>>>>>>>> PCI 8086:1521 >>>>>>>>>> Net L#0 "eth0" >>>>>>>>>> PCI 8086:1521 >>>>>>>>>> Net L#1 "eth1" >>>>>>>>>> PCIBridge >>>>>>>>>> PCI 15b3:1003 >>>>>>>>>> Net L#2 "ib0" >>>>>>>>>> OpenFabrics L#3 "mlx4_0" >>>>>>>>>> PCIBridge >>>>>>>>>> PCI 102b:0532 >>>>>>>>>> PCI 8086:1d02 >>>>>>>>>> Block L#4 "sda" >>>>>>>>>> NUMANode L#1 (P#1 32GB) + Socket L#1 + L3 L#1 (20MB) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#8 (256KB) + L1d L#8 (32KB) + L1i L#8 (32KB) + Core L#8 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#16 (P#8) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#17 (P#24) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#9 (256KB) + L1d L#9 (32KB) + L1i L#9 (32KB) + Core L#9 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#18 (P#9) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#19 (P#25) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#10 (256KB) + L1d L#10 (32KB) + L1i L#10 (32KB) + Core L#10 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#20 (P#10) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#21 (P#26) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#11 (256KB) + L1d L#11 (32KB) + L1i L#11 (32KB) + Core L#11 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#22 (P#11) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#23 (P#27) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#12 (256KB) + L1d L#12 (32KB) + L1i L#12 (32KB) + Core L#12 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#24 (P#12) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#25 (P#28) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#13 (256KB) + L1d L#13 (32KB) + L1i L#13 (32KB) + Core L#13 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#26 (P#13) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#27 (P#29) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#14 (256KB) + L1d L#14 (32KB) + L1i L#14 (32KB) + Core L#14 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#28 (P#14) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#29 (P#30) >>>>>>>>>> L2 L#15 (256KB) + L1d L#15 (32KB) + L1i L#15 (32KB) + Core L#15 >>>>>>>>>> PU L#30 (P#15) >>>>>>>>>> PU L#31 (P#31) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2015 05:46 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I’m just misreading your HT map - that slurm nodelist syntax >>>>>>>>>>> is a new one to me, but they tend to change things around. Could >>>>>>>>>>> you run lstopo on one of those compute nodes and send the output? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’m just suspicious because I’m not seeing a clear pairing of HT >>>>>>>>>>> numbers in your output, but HT numbering is BIOS-specific and I may >>>>>>>>>>> just not be understanding your particular pattern. Our error >>>>>>>>>>> message is clearly indicating that we are seeing individual HTs >>>>>>>>>>> (and not complete cores) assigned, and I don’t know the source of >>>>>>>>>>> that confusion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2015, at 8:28 AM, marcin.krotkiewski >>>>>>>>>>>> <marcin.krotkiew...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2015 04:38 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> If mpirun isn’t trying to do any binding, then you will of course >>>>>>>>>>>>> get the right mapping as we’ll just inherit whatever we received. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I meant that whatever you received (what SLURM gives) is a >>>>>>>>>>>> correct cpu map and assigns _whole_ CPUs, not a single HT to MPI >>>>>>>>>>>> processes. In the case mentioned earlier openmpi should start 6 >>>>>>>>>>>> tasks on c1-30. If HT would be treated as separate and independent >>>>>>>>>>>> cores, sched_getaffinity of an MPI process started on c1-30 would >>>>>>>>>>>> return a map with 6 entries only. In my case it returns a map >>>>>>>>>>>> with 12 >>>>>>>>>>>> entries - 2 for each core. So one process is in fact allocated >>>>>>>>>>>> both HTs, not only one. Is what I'm saying correct? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at your output, it’s pretty clear that you are getting >>>>>>>>>>>>> independent HTs assigned and not full cores. >>>>>>>>>>>> How do you mean? Is the above understanding wrong? I would expect >>>>>>>>>>>> that on c1-30 with --bind-to core openmpi should bind to logical >>>>>>>>>>>> cores 0 and 16 (rank 0), 1 and 17 (rank 2) and so on. All those >>>>>>>>>>>> logical cores are available in sched_getaffinity map, and there is >>>>>>>>>>>> twice as many logical cores as there are MPI processes started on >>>>>>>>>>>> the node. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that something in slurm has changed such that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> detects that HT has been enabled, and then begins treating the >>>>>>>>>>>>> HTs as completely independent cpus. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Try changing “-bind-to core” to “-bind-to hwthread >>>>>>>>>>>>> -use-hwthread-cpus” and see if that works >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have and the binding is wrong. For example, I got this output >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 0 @ compute-1-30.local 0, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 1 @ compute-1-30.local 16, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that two ranks have been bound to the same physical >>>>>>>>>>>> core (logical cores 0 and 16 are two HTs of the same core). If I >>>>>>>>>>>> use --bind-to core, I get the following correct binding >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 0 @ compute-1-30.local 0, 16, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is many other ranks get bad binding with 'rank XXX is >>>>>>>>>>>> not bound (or bound to all available processors)' warning. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But I think I was not entirely correct saying that 1.10.1rc1 did >>>>>>>>>>>> not fix things. It still might have improved something, but not >>>>>>>>>>>> everything. Consider this job: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SLURM_JOB_CPUS_PER_NODE='5,4,6,5(x2),7,5,9,5,7,6' >>>>>>>>>>>> SLURM_JOB_NODELIST='c8-[31,34],c9-[30-32,35-36],c10-[31-34]' >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I run 32 tasks as follows (with 1.10.1rc1) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> mpirun --hetero-nodes --report-bindings --bind-to core -np 32 >>>>>>>>>>>> ./affinity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get the following error: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> A request was made to bind to that would result in binding more >>>>>>>>>>>> processes than cpus on a resource: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bind to: CORE >>>>>>>>>>>> Node: c9-31 >>>>>>>>>>>> #processes: 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> #cpus: 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can override this protection by adding the "overload-allowed" >>>>>>>>>>>> option to your binding directive. >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I now use --bind-to core:overload-allowed, then openmpi starts >>>>>>>>>>>> and _most_ of the threads are bound correctly (i.e., map contains >>>>>>>>>>>> two logical cores in ALL cases), except this case that required >>>>>>>>>>>> the overload flag: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 15 @ compute-9-31.local 1, 17, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 16 @ compute-9-31.local 11, 27, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 17 @ compute-9-31.local 2, 18, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 18 @ compute-9-31.local 12, 28, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 19 @ compute-9-31.local 1, 17, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note pair 1,17 is used twice. The original SLURM delivered map (no >>>>>>>>>>>> binding) on this node is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 15 @ compute-9-31.local 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 27, 28, >>>>>>>>>>>> 29, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 16 @ compute-9-31.local 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 27, 28, 29, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 17 @ compute-9-31.local 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 27, 28, 29, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 18 @ compute-9-31.local 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 27, 28, 29, >>>>>>>>>>>> rank 19 @ compute-9-31.local 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 27, 28, 29, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why does openmpi use cores (1,17) twice instead of using core >>>>>>>>>>>> (13,29)? Clearly, the original SLURM-delivered map has 5 CPUs >>>>>>>>>>>> included, enough for 5 MPI processes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Marcin >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2015, at 7:12 AM, marcin.krotkiewski >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <marcin.krotkiew...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2015 01:06 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Marcin. Looking at this, I’m guessing that Slurm may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treating HTs as “cores” - i.e., as independent cpus. Any chance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is true? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to the best of my knowledge, and at least not intentionally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SLURM starts as many processes as there are physical cores, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads. To verify this, consider this test case: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> users mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> us...@open-mpi.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subscription: >>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >>>>>> >>>>>> Link to this post: >>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/10/27790.php >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> users mailing list >>>>> >>>>> us...@open-mpi.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscription: >>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >>>>> >>>>> Link to this post: >>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/10/27791.php >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> users mailing list >>>> >>>> us...@open-mpi.org >>>> >>>> Subscription: >>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >>>> >>>> Link to this post: >>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/10/27792.php >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> users mailing list >>> >>> us...@open-mpi.org >>> >>> Subscription: >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >>> >>> Link to this post: >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/10/27814.php >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> >> us...@open-mpi.org >> >> Subscription: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users >> >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/10/27815.php > > <heterogeneous_topologies.patch>_______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2015/10/27827.php -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
