On 14.12.2016 08:00, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
On 14:24 Mon 12 Dec , Dave Love wrote:
Andreas Schäfer writes:
Yes, as root, and there are N different systems to at least provide
unprivileged read access on HPC systems, but that's a bit different, I
think.
LIKWID[1] uses a daemon to provide
On 14:24 Mon 12 Dec , Dave Love wrote:
> Andreas Schäfer writes:
>
> >> Yes, as root, and there are N different systems to at least provide
> >> unprivileged read access on HPC systems, but that's a bit different, I
> >> think.
> >
> > LIKWID[1] uses a daemon to provide limited RW access to M
Andreas Schäfer writes:
>> Yes, as root, and there are N different systems to at least provide
>> unprivileged read access on HPC systems, but that's a bit different, I
>> think.
>
> LIKWID[1] uses a daemon to provide limited RW access to MSRs for
> applications. I wouldn't wonder if support for
On 14:25 Thu 08 Dec , Dave Love wrote:
> Jeff Hammond writes:
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Note that MPI implementations may be interested in taking advantage of
> >> > https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2016/10/06/intel-
> >> xeon-phi-product-family-x200-knl-user-mode-ring-3-monitor-and-mwait.
> >
Jeff Hammond writes:
>>
>>
>> > Note that MPI implementations may be interested in taking advantage of
>> > https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2016/10/06/intel-
>> xeon-phi-product-family-x200-knl-user-mode-ring-3-monitor-and-mwait.
>>
>> Is that really useful if it's KNL-specific and MSR-bas
>
>
> > Note that MPI implementations may be interested in taking advantage of
> > https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2016/10/06/intel-
> xeon-phi-product-family-x200-knl-user-mode-ring-3-monitor-and-mwait.
>
> Is that really useful if it's KNL-specific and MSR-based, with a setup
> that implem
Jeff Hammond writes:
>> I see sleeping for ‘0s’ typically taking ≳50μs on Linux (measured on
>> RHEL 6 or 7, without specific tuning, on recent Intel). It doesn't look
>> like something you want in paths that should be low latency, but maybe
>> there's something you can do to improve that? (sch
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dave Love wrote:
>
> [Some time ago]
> Jeff Hammond writes:
>
> > If you want to keep long-waiting MPI processes from clogging your CPU
> > pipeline and heating up your machines, you can turn blocking MPI
> > collectives into nicer ones by implementing them in term
[Some time ago]
Jeff Hammond writes:
> If you want to keep long-waiting MPI processes from clogging your CPU
> pipeline and heating up your machines, you can turn blocking MPI
> collectives into nicer ones by implementing them in terms of MPI-3
> nonblocking collectives using something like the f
If you want to keep long-waiting MPI processes from clogging your CPU
pipeline and heating up your machines, you can turn blocking MPI
collectives into nicer ones by implementing them in terms of MPI-3
nonblocking collectives using something like the following.
I typed this code straight into this
I would like to see if there are any updates re this thread back from 2010:
https://mail-archive.com/users@lists.open-mpi.org/msg15154.html
I've got 3 boxes at home, a laptop and 2 other quadcore nodes . When the
CPU is at 100% for a long time, the fans make quite some noise:-)
The laptop runs t
11 matches
Mail list logo
