That worked for me. Brian
On 12/19/13 9:32 AM, "Ralph Castain" <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > > > >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 > > > > > > -- Brian W. Barrett Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories
