Project

General

Profile

Feature #1939

Add concept of exclusions to automated provisioning arguments

Added by Evan Ramos 3 months ago. Updated 18 days ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
-
Target version:
-
Start date:
06/21/2018
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Tags:

Description

Sometimes it is desirable to leave a portion of a machine's resources unused by Charm++ so that noise sources like the OS kernel can execute on its own core (for example).

Some private planning documentation indicates this as a potential design for these arguments, though it is not clear what is meant by an exclusion:

Exclusions (low priority, can be solved implicitly)
++exPerHost
++exPerSocket
++exPerCore

Another possibility is:

++excludeSocketsPerHost
++excludeCoresPerHost
++excludePUsPerHost
++excludeCoresPerSocket
++excludePUsPerSocket
++excludePUsPerCore

History

#1 Updated by Sam White 2 months ago

I think the proposed ones look good:

++excludeSocketsPerHost
++excludeCoresPerHost
++excludePUsPerHost
++excludeCoresPerSocket
++excludePUsPerSocket
++excludePUsPerCore

The most common usage scenario is to leave one core or one PU idle per socket or host for the OS kernel to run uninterrupted on.

#2 Updated by Eric Bohm 18 days ago

  • Assignee set to Evan Ramos

Also available in: Atom PDF