On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Dave Love <d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
> Brice Goglin <brice.gog...@inria.fr> writes: > > > Hello > > It's not a feature. This should work fine. > > Random guess: do you have NUMA headers on your build machine ? (package > > libnuma-dev or numactl-devel) > > (hwloc-info --support also report whether membinding is supported or not) > > Brice > > Oops, you're right! Thanks. I thought what I'm using elsewhere was > built from the same srpm, but the rpm on the KNL box doesn't actually > require libnuma. After a rebuild, it's OK and I'm suitably embarrassed. > > By the way, is it expected that binding will be slow on it? hwloc-bind > is ~10 times slower (~1s) than on two-socket sandybridge, and ~3 times > slower than on a 128-core, 16-socket system. > > Is this a bottleneck in any application? Are there codes bindings memory frequently? Because most things inside the kernel are limited by single-threaded performance, it is reasonable for them to be slower than on a Xeon processor, but I've not seen slowdowns that high. Jeff -- Jeff Hammond jeff.scie...@gmail.com http://jeffhammond.github.io/
_______________________________________________ hwloc-users mailing list hwloc-users@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-users
