Wait, I missed the "io node" part of your first mail. The bgq support is for compute nodes running cnk. Are io nodes running linux on same hardware as the compute nodes?
I have an account on vesta. Where should I logon to have a look?
On 25 mars 2014 08:12:58 UTC+01:00, "Biddiscombe, John A." <biddisco_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>gives the same output and setting env var BG_THREADMODEL=2 does not
>appear to make any visible difference.
>my configure command for compiling hwloc had no special options,
>should I rerun with something set?
>From: hwloc-users [mailto:hwloc-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf
>Of Brice Goglin
>Sent: 25 March 2014 08:04
>To: Hardware locality user list
>Subject: Re: [hwloc-users] BGQ question.
>Le 25/03/2014 07:51, Biddiscombe, John A. a Ã©crit :
>I'm compiling hwloc using clang (bgclang++11 from ANL) to run on IO
>nodes af a BGQ. It seems to have compiled ok, and when I run lstopo, I
>get an output like this (below), which looks reasonable, but there are
>15 sockets instead of 16. I'm a little worried because the first time I
>compiled, I had problems where apps would report an error from HWLOC on
>start and tell me to set HWLOC_FORCE_BGQ=1. when I did set this env
>var, it would then report that "topology became empty" and the app
>would segfault due to the unexpected return from hwloc presumably.
>Can you give a bit more details on what you did there? I'd like to
>check if that case should be better supported or not.
>I wiped everything and recompiled (not sure what I did differently),
>and now it behaves more sensibly, but with 15 instead of 16 sockets.
>Should IO be worried?
>The topology detection is hardwired so you shouldn't worried on the
>The problem could be related to how you reserved resources before
>Does lstopo --whole-system see more sockets?
>Does BG_THREADMODEL=2 help?
>hwloc-users mailing list