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]> wrote:
>> 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 was
>> 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 error
> 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.
> Brian W. Barrett
> Scalable System Software Group
> Sandia National Laboratories
> devel mailing list