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 

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

devel mailing list

Reply via email to