On 12/19/13 6:59 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com> 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. Brian -- Brian W. Barrett Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories
