On 12/19/13 8:43 AM, "Ralph Castain" <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwbarre_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 12/19/13 6:59 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]>
>>> 3. Finally, we're giving a warning saying:
>>> WARNING: a request was made to bind a process. While the system
>>> supports binding the process itself, at least one node does NOT
>>> support binding memory to the process location.
>>> For both #1 and #3, I wonder if we shouldn't be warning if no binding
>>> explicitly stated (i.e., we're just using the defaults). Specifically,
>>> if no binding is specified:
>>> - if we oversubscribe, (possibly) warn about the performance loss of
>>> oversubscription, and don't bind
>>> - don't warn about lack of memory binding
>> We have a couple machines where memory binding is failing for one reason
>> or another. If we're binding by default, we really shouldn't throw
>> messages about not being able to bind memory. It's REALLY annoying.
>Just to help me understand a bit better - you are saying that the node
>supports process binding, but not memory binding? I don't see how the
>error appears otherwise, but want to ensure I understand the code path.
That appears to be the case, yes.
Brian W. Barrett
Scalable System Software Group
Sandia National Laboratories