Okay, I think I have these things fixed in r29978 on the trunk - please give it a spin and confirm so we can move it to 1.7.4
On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwba...@sandia.gov> wrote: > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
