"r...@open-mpi.org" <r...@open-mpi.org> writes: > Yes, I’ve been hearing a growing number of complaints about cgroups for that > reason. Our mapping/ranking/binding options will work with the cgroup > envelope, but it generally winds up with a result that isn’t what the user > wanted or expected.
How? I don't understand as an implementor why there's a difference from just resource manager core binding, assuming the programs don't try to escape the binding. (I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with cgroups in general...) > We always post the OMPI BoF slides on our web site, and we’ll do the same > this year. I may try to record webcast on it and post that as well since I > know it can be confusing given all the flexibility we expose. > > In case you haven’t read it yet, here is the relevant section from “man > mpirun”: I'm afraid I read that, and various versions of the code at different times, and I've worked on resource manager core binding. I still had to experiment to find a way to run mpi+openmp jobs correctly, in multiple ompi versions. NEWS usually doesn't help, nor conference talks for people who aren't there and don't know they should search beyond the documentation. We don't even seem to be able to make reliable bug reports as they may or may not get picked up here. Regardless, I can't see how binding to socket can be a good default. _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/users
