On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:23 PM, Gilbert Grosdidier wrote:
> > lstopo
> Machine (35GB)
> NUMANode L#0 (P#0 18GB) + Socket L#0 + L3 L#0 (8192KB)
> L2 L#0 (256KB) + L1 L#0 (32KB) + Core L#0
> PU L#0 (P#0)
> PU L#1 (P#8)
> L2 L#1 (256KB) + L1 L#1 (32KB) + Core L#1
> PU L#2 (P#1)
> PU L#3 (P#9)
> L2 L#2 (256KB) + L1 L#2 (32KB) + Core L#2
> PU L#4 (P#2)
> PU L#5 (P#10)
> L2 L#3 (256KB) + L1 L#3 (32KB) + Core L#3
> PU L#6 (P#3)
> PU L#7 (P#11)
[snip]
Well, this might disprove my theory. :-\ The OS indexing is not contiguous on the hyperthreads, so I might be wrong about what happened here. Try this:
mpirun --mca mpi_paffinity_alone 1 hwloc-bind --get
You can even run that on just one node; let's see what you get. This will tell us what each process is *actually* bound to. hwloc-bind --get will report a bitmask of the P#'s from above. So if we see 001, 010, 011, ...etc, then my theory of OMPI binding 1 proc per hyperthread (vs. 1 proc per core) is incorrect.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}