On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwba...@sandia.gov> wrote:
> 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. 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 > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Scalable System Software Group > Sandia National Laboratories > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
