Something is preventing all cores from appearing. The BIOS?
My E5-2650 processors definitely have 8 cores (without counting
hyperthreads) as advertised by Intel.

Brice



Le 30/05/2012 19:58, Mike Dubman a écrit :
> no cgroups or cpusets.
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com
> <mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     On May 30, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
>
>     > ohh.. you are right, false alarm :) sorry siblings != cores - so
>     it is HT
>
>     OMPI 1.6.soon-to-be-1 should handle HT properly, meaning that it
>     will bind to all the HT's in a core and/or socket.
>
>     Are you using Linux cgroups/cpusets to restrict available cores?
>      Because Brice is saying that E5-2650 is supposed to have more cores.
>
>
>     > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Brice Goglin
>     <brice.gog...@inria.fr <mailto:brice.gog...@inria.fr>> wrote:
>     > Your /proc/cpuinfo output (filtered below) looks like only two
>     sockets (physical ids 0 and 1), with one core each (cpu cores=1,
>     core id=0), with hyperthreading (siblings=2). So lstopo looks good.
>     > E5-2650 is supposed to have 8 cores. I assume you use Linux
>     cgroups/cpusets to restrict the available cores. The
>     missconfiguration may be there.
>     > Brice
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Le 30/05/2012 15:14, Mike Dubman a écrit :
>     >> or, lstopo lies (Im not using the latest hwloc but one which
>     comes with distro).
>     >> The machine has two dual-code sockets, total 4 physical cores:
>     >> processor       : 0
>     >>
>     >> physical id     : 0
>     >> siblings        : 2
>     >> core id         : 0
>     >> cpu cores       : 1
>     >>
>     >> processor       : 1
>     >>
>     >> physical id     : 1
>     >> siblings        : 2
>     >> core id         : 0
>     >> cpu cores       : 1
>     >>
>     >> processor       : 2
>     >>
>     >> physical id     : 0
>     >> siblings        : 2
>     >> core id         : 0
>     >> cpu cores       : 1
>     >>
>     >> processor       : 3
>     >>
>     >> physical id     : 1
>     >> siblings        : 2
>     >> core id         : 0
>     >> cpu cores       : 1
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ralph Castain
>     <r...@open-mpi.org <mailto:r...@open-mpi.org>> wrote:
>     >> Hmmm...well, from what I see, mpirun was actually giving you
>     the right answer! I only see TWO cores on each node, yet you told
>     it to bind FOUR processes on each node, each proc to be bound to a
>     unique core.
>     >>
>     >> The error message was correct - there are not enough cores on
>     those nodes to do what you requested.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On May 30, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Mike Dubman wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> attached.
>     >>>
>     >>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Squyres
>     <jsquy...@cisco.com <mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com>> wrote:
>     >>> On May 30, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> >> $hwloc-ls --of console
>     >>> >> Machine (32GB)
>     >>> >>  NUMANode L#0 (P#0 16GB) + Socket L#0 + L3 L#0 (20MB) + L2
>     L#0 (256KB) + L1 L#0 (32KB) + Core L#0
>     >>> >>    PU L#0 (P#0)
>     >>> >>    PU L#1 (P#2)
>     >>> >>  NUMANode L#1 (P#1 16GB) + Socket L#1 + L3 L#1 (20MB) + L2
>     L#1 (256KB) + L1 L#1 (32KB) + Core L#1
>     >>> >>    PU L#2 (P#1)
>     >>> >>    PU L#3 (P#3)
>     >>> >
>     >>> > Is this hwloc output exactly the same on both nodes?
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> More specifically, can you send the lstopo xml output from
>     each of the 2 nodes you ran on?
>     >>>
>     >>> --
>     >>> Jeff Squyres
>     >>> jsquy...@cisco.com <mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com>
>     >>> For corporate legal information go to:
>     http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> devel mailing list
>     >>> de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org>
>     >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>     >>>
>     >>> <lstopo-out.tbz>_______________________________________________
>     >>>
>     >>> devel mailing list
>     >>> de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org>
>     >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> devel mailing list
>     >> de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org>
>     >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> devel mailing list
>     >>
>     >> de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org>
>     >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > devel mailing list
>     > de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org>
>     > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > devel mailing list
>     > de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org>
>     > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
>
>     --
>     Jeff Squyres
>     jsquy...@cisco.com <mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com>
>     For corporate legal information go to:
>     http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     devel mailing list
>     de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org>
>     http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel

Reply via email to