> On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Sylvain Jeaugey <sjeau...@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, I see. No, we don't want to add a full modex if there isn't one already.
>
> Now, if we restrict this to the intra-node (we don't care on which
> socket/core is a distant process), is there any simple way to do an
> intra-node-only modex ?
Sure - we can “pmix.put” the data with “local” scope to avoid it going
anywhere, and then add an option in “fence” to do only a local fence (i.e.,
across the procs on the same node) to ensure the data was ready. Or we could do
a non-blocking “get” to retrieve it and let the “fence” be done in the MPI
layer by blocking until the data is returned.
Either way, not something we would want to do by default. Still, since the user
knows they are doing this, should be easy enough for them to provide an option
telling us to perform the extra maneuver.
>
> On 04/26/2016 04:28 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Sylvain Jeaugey <sjeau...@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed, I implied that affinity was set before MPI_Init (usually even
>>> before the process is launched).
>>>
>>> And yes, that would require a modex ... but I thought there was one already
>>> and maybe we could pack the affinity information inside the existing one.
>> If the BTLs et al don’t require the modex, then we don’t perform it (e.g.,
>> when launched by mpirun or via a PMIx-enabled RM). So when someone does as
>> you describe, then we would have to force the modex to exchange the info.
>> Doable, but results in a scaling penalty, and so definitely not something we
>> want to do by default.
>>
>>
>>> On 04/26/2016 02:56 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>> Hmmm…you mean for procs on the same node? I’m not sure how you can do it
>>>> without introducing another data exchange, and that would require the app
>>>> to execute it since otherwise we have no idea when they set the affinity.
>>>>
>>>> If we assume they set the affinity prior to calling MPI_Init, then we
>>>> could do it - but at the cost of forcing a modex. You can only detect your
>>>> own affinity, so to get the relative placement, you have to do an exchange
>>>> if we can’t pass it to you. Perhaps we could offer it as an option?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Sylvain Jeaugey <sjeau...@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Within the BTL code (and surely elsewhere), we can use those convenient
>>>>> OPAL_PROC_ON_LOCAL_{NODE,SOCKET, ...} macros to figure out where another
>>>>> endpoint is located compared to us.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that it only works when ORTE defines it. The NODE works
>>>>> almost always since ORTE is always doing it. But for the NUMA, SOCKET, or
>>>>> CORE to work, we need to use Open MPI binding/mapping capabilities. If
>>>>> the process affinity was set with something else (custom scripts using
>>>>> taskset, cpusets, ...), it doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> How hard do you think it would it be to detect the affinity and set those
>>>>> flags using hwloc to figure out if we're on the same {SOCKET, CORE, ...}
>>>>> ? Where would it be simpler to do this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> Sylvain
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
>>>>> may contain
>>>>> confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
>>>>> distribution
>>>>> is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
>>>>> sender by
>>>>> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> devel mailing list
>>>>> de...@open-mpi.org
>>>>> Subscription: https://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>>> Link to this post:
>>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/04/18821.php
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> devel mailing list
>>>> de...@open-mpi.org
>>>> Subscription: https://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>>> Link to this post:
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/04/18822.php
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> devel mailing list
>>> de...@open-mpi.org
>>> Subscription: https://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>>> Link to this post:
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/04/18823.php
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> de...@open-mpi.org
>> Subscription: https://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>> Link to this post:
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/04/18824.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> Subscription: https://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/04/18825.php
