On Jun 21, 2018, at 10:26 AM, r...@open-mpi.org wrote: > >>> Alternatively, processes can be assigned to processors based on >>> their local rank on a node using the \fI--bind-to cpuset:ordered\fP option >>> with an associated \fI--cpu-list "0,2,5"\fP. This directs that the first >>> rank on a node be bound to cpu0, the second rank on the node be bound >>> to cpu1, and the third rank on the node be bound to cpu5. Note that an >>> error will result if more processes are assigned to a node than cpus >>> are provided. >> >> Question about this: do the CPUs in the list correspond to the Linux virtual >> processor IDs? E.g., do they correspond to what one would pass to >> numactl(1)? > > I didn’t change the meaning of the list - it is still the local cpu ID per > hwloc > >> Also, a minor quibble: it might be a little confusing to have --bind-to >> cpuset, and then have to specify a CPU list (not a CPU set). Should it be >> --cpuset-list or --cpuset? > > Your PR is welcome! Historically, that option has always been --cpu-list and > I didn’t change it
Oh, I see! I didn't realize / forgot / whatever that --cpu-list is an existing option. Let me change my question, then: should "--bind-to cpuset" be changed to "--bind-to cpulist"? (Or even "cpu-list" to exactly match the existing "--cpu-list" CLI option) This would be for two reasons: 1. Make the terminology agree between the two options. 2. Don't use the term "cpuset" because that has a specific meaning in Linux (that isn't tied to hwloc's logical processor IDs) (Yes, I'm happy to do a PR to do this) -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
