Sadly, lama has fallen into a stale, unsupported condition. I’ve been thinking about your mapping request, and I don’t currently see a way to do it with the existing options. I understand the request, however, and will see if I can come up with something over the weekend.
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Stephen Guzik <stephen.gu...@colostate.edu> > wrote: > > We've also tested lama with > > -np 10 --mca rmaps_base_verbose 10 --mca rmaps_lama_priority 91 --mca > rmaps_lama_map sNbnch --mca rmaps_lama_bind 1h --mca rmaps_lama_mppr 1:c,5:s > > It seems like this would do the right thing except a priority < 10 does > nothing and greater than 10 segfaults. Is lama still intended to be > supported? If not, any other workarounds? > > [node4:30795] [[32231,0],0]: Final mapper priorities > [node4:30795] Mapper: lama Priority: 91 > [node4:30795] Mapper: ppr Priority: 90 > [node4:30795] Mapper: seq Priority: 60 > [node4:30795] Mapper: resilient Priority: 40 > [node4:30795] Mapper: mindist Priority: 20 > [node4:30795] Mapper: round_robin Priority: 10 > [node4:30795] Mapper: staged Priority: 5 > [node4:30795] Mapper: rank_file Priority: 0 > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps: mapping job [32231,1] > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps: creating new map for job [32231,1] > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps: nprocs 10 > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps[139] mapping not given - using bysocket > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps[288] binding not given - using bysocket > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: Mapping job [32231,1] > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: Revised Parameters ----- > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: Map : sNbnch > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: Bind : 1h > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: MPPR : 1:c,5:s > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: Order : s > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: --------------------------------- > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Binding : [1h] > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Binding : 1 x Hw. Thread > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: --------------------------------- > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Mapping : [sNbnch] > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Mapping : (0) Socket (3 vs 0) > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Mapping : (1) NUMA (2 vs 1) > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Mapping : (2) Board (1 vs 2) > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Mapping : (3) Machine (0 vs 3) > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Mapping : (4) Core (7 vs 7) > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Mapping : (5) Hw. Thread (8 vs 8) > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: --------------------------------- > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- MPPR : [1:c,5:s] > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- MPPR : 1 at Core > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- MPPR : 5 at Socket > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: --------------------------------- > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Ordering : [s] > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Ordering : Sequential > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: --------------------------------- > [node4:30795] AVAILABLE NODES FOR MAPPING: > [node4:30795] node: node4 daemon: 0 > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: --------------------------------- > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Building the Max Tree... > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: --------------------------------- > [node4:30795] mca:rmaps:lama: ----- Converting Remote Tree: node4 > [node4:30795] *** Process received signal *** > [node4:30795] Signal: Segmentation fault (11) > [node4:30795] Signal code: Address not mapped (1) > > Stephen > > On 02/11/2016 05:30 PM, Stephen Guzik wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to divide n processes between the sockets on a node, with >> one process per core, and bind them to a hwthread. Consider a system >> with 2 sockets, 10 cores per socket, and 2 hwthreads per core. If I enter >> >> -np 20 --map-by ppr:1:core --bind-to hwthread >> >> then this works as I intend. But if I only want 10 processes with 5 on >> each socket, then >> >> -np 10 --map-by ppr:5:socket --bind-to hwthread >> >> will map two processes to each core (1 per hwthread). I also tried >> >> -np 10 --map-by ppr:5:socket:pe=2 --bind-to hwthread >> -np 10 --map-by ppr:5:socket --bind-to core >> >> but both of those will bind to the core. How can I say 5 per socket and >> only 1 per core and bind to a single hardware thread? >> >> I am using openmpi 1.8.8. >> >> Thanks, >> Stephen >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/2016/02/28520.php > <http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2016/02/28520.php>
