Hwloc supports mac topology (not binding because osx doesn't (publicly) support binding).
But I definitely agree that soak time is necessary. I put a timeout of about 2 weeks; I thought that should be enough. But there's really no rush. -jms Sent from my PDA. No type good. ----- Original Message ----- From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org <devel-boun...@open-mpi.org> To: Open MPI Developers <de...@open-mpi.org> Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010 Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components Umm...I vote "no". I still need that "test" component to use when testing paffinity on machines that don't have all the required support (e.g., Mac). I don't have an opinion on the other components. On May 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > WHAT: Remove all non-hwloc paffinity components. > > WHY: The hwloc component supports all those systems. > > WHERE: opal/mca/paffinity/[^hwloc|base] directories > > WHEN: for 1.5.1 > > TIMEOUT: Tuesday call, May 25 (yes, about 2 weeks from now -- let hwloc soak > for a while...) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > MORE DETAILS: > > As you probably noticed, I have (finally) committed the "hwloc" paffinity > component to the trunk and removed the "linux" (i.e., PLPA) paffinity > component: > > https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/23125 > https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/23126 > > hwloc supports all systems that OMPI supports (and several that OMPI > doesn't!) -- more specifically, it supports all the other systems that we > have paffinity components for (darwin, linux, posix, solaris, windows). It > can therefore fully replace all the other paffinity components. > > Indeed, the new hwloc's default priority is higher than all of the other > current paffinity components, so over the next week or two, it'll be a good > soak test to see if it is working properly. Once we get any kinks worked > out, I propose removing all the other paffinity components and leaving only > hwloc. > > That being said, we might as well leave the paffinity framework around, even > if it only has one component left, simply on the argument that someday Open > MPI may support a platform that hwloc does not. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
