[Beowulf] Again about NUMA (numactl and taskset)
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Patrick Geoffray patrick at myri.comThu Jun 26 23:39:39 PDT 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Again about NUMA (numactl and taskset)
- Next message: [Beowulf] Again about NUMA (numactl and taskset)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi Hakon, Håkon Bugge wrote: > This is information we're using to optimize how pnt-to-pnt communication > is implemented. The code-base involved is fairly complicated and I do > not expect resource management systems to cope with it. Why not ? It's its job to know the resources it has to manage. The resource manager has more information than you, it does not have to detect at runtime for each job, and it can manage cores allocation across jobs. You cannot expect the granularity of the allocation to stay at the node level with the core count increasing. If the MPI implementation does the spawning, it should definitively have support to enforce core affinity (most do AFAIK). However, core affinity should be dictated by the scheduler. Heck, the MPI implementation should not do the spawning in the first place. Historically, resource managers have been pretty dumb. These days, there is enough competition in this domain to expect better. Patrick
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Again about NUMA (numactl and taskset)
- Next message: [Beowulf] Again about NUMA (numactl and taskset)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
