Li-Ta Lo wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 13:29 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Li-Ta Lo wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 12:40 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>>> Hmm. So I'm confused -- I thought you said in #9 that "There should
>>>> be just 2 physical sockets on the mainboard". So PLPA is now
>>>> reporting 2 sockets, numbered correctly.
>>> I didn't say how plpa-info should report. I was giving you the output
>>> of the plpa-info and it was wrong w.r.t what you are trying to fix. It
>>> says there are 3 sockets which is still wrong.
>> Hah! I missed that; my bad.
>>
>>>> [ollie_at_exponential plpa-info]$ ./plpa-info --topo
>>>>> Kernel affinity support: yes
>>>>> Kernel topology support: yes
>>>>> Number of processor sockets: 3
>>>> I do have PLPA intentionally skipping reporting sockets that have no
>>>> cores on them. Are you saying that plpa-info should report sockets
>>>> with no cores? I chose not to do that because how would you know
>>>> what they are? Linux only reports the sockets that are in use -- how
>>>> would you know what sockets are not in use? For example, what if you
>>>> populate a motherboard with 4 sockets in sockets 0 and 1 -- how would
>>>> PLPA know that sockets 2 and 3 exist?
>>> The output still talks about socket without cores. It is right with
>>> socket 1 (not counting/reporting it) but it is wrong with socket 2.
>> Is the tarball attached to #9 still accurate? I was using that when
>> testing the new stuff and I was getting 2 sockets displayed from plpa-
>> info, and only showing 1 core on sockets 0 and 3.
>>
>
> No. I turned of SMT yesterday when answering you bug report.
> How should I create the tarball again? Just tar czf ?
This was my howto:
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2007/04/3126.php
Bert
>
> Ollie
>
> _______________________________________________
> plpa-users mailing list
> plpa-users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/plpa-users
>
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}