On 12/19/13 8:43 AM, "Ralph Castain" <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
> >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. That appears to be the case, yes. Brian -- Brian W. Barrett Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories
