Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] Revise paffinity method?
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-08 10:32:28


Actually, I was wondering (hot tub thought for the night) if the
paffinity system can't just tell us if the proc has been bound or not?
That would remove the need for YAP (i.e., yet another param).

On May 8, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> On May 8, 2009, at 6:35 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
>
>> So in essence the user might set one parameter and depending on
>> whether
>> orted is being used to launch the job or not determines when the
>> process
>> binding happens (process launch vs MPI_Init time). In the case
>> that one
>> needs/wants to rely on a different launcher to bind then you don't
>> specify the OMPI parameter at all.
>>
>> Is that right?
>>
>
> Not really. The user still sets mpi_paffinity_alone. We just try
> to handle it in the orted, and if that doesn't work (more
> specifically, if there's no orted to do it), then we'll handle it in
> MPI_INIT.
>
> There's a little extra secret sauce for the orted to tell the MPI
> process "don't bother doing the paffinity, I did it for you
> already" (that's the extra [internal] MCA param) so that MPI_INIT
> knows not to do it.
>
>> So, will there be a way to force MPI_Init based binding even if one
>> is
>> using orted to launch a job. Not sure there really is a use case for
>> such just curious.
>>
>
> If anyone cares/has a use case, I'm sure this would not be hard to do.
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel