Okay, I think I have these things fixed in r29978 on the trunk - please give it a spin and confirm so we can move it to 1.7.4
On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwbarre_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> devel mailing list