I see - yes, that would be true. It would not build without hwloc. An alternative would be to have hwloc return a neutral response that we check and ignore if hwloc isn’t “active”. Would that suffice?
I’m just looking to remove all that #if cruft all over the place. > On Sep 3, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > Gilles, > > You have the nature of my question correct. > To restate: > > Imagine somebody is developing an experimental platform (such as a research > OS) and they want an MPI for it. > Additionally assume that hwloc (the embedded one or otherwise) doesn't build > at all for this platform. > It is my understanding (please correct if I've got it wrong) that currently > they can configure using --without-hwloc. > My concern is that if --without-hwloc is dropped then they cannot build Open > MPI at all without first porting hwloc. > > -Paul > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet > <gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com <mailto:gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Ralph, > > just to be clear, your proposal is to abort if openmpi is configured with > --without-hwloc, right ? > ( the --with-hwloc option is not removed because we want to keep the option > of using an external hwloc library ) > > if I understand correctly, Paul's point is that if openmpi is ported to a new > architecture for which hwloc has not been ported yet (embedded hwloc or > external hwloc), then the very first step is to port hwloc before ompi can be > built. > > did I get it right Paul ? > > Brice, what would happen in such a case ? > embedded hwloc cannot be built ? > hwloc returns little or no information ? > > for example, on Fujitsu FX10 node (single socket, 16 cores), hwloc reports 16 > sockets with one core each and no cache. though this is not correct, that can > be seen as equivalent to the real config by ompi, so this is not really an > issue for ompi. > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > On Friday, September 4, 2015, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org > <mailto:r...@open-mpi.org>> wrote: > No - hwloc is embedded in OMPI anyway. > >> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov <>> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org <>> wrote: >> Does anyone know of a reason why we shouldn’t do this? >> >> >> Would doing this mean that a port to a new system would require that one >> first perform a full hwloc port? >> >> -Paul >> >> -- >> Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov <> >> Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group >> Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 >> <tel:%2B1-510-495-2352> >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900 >> <tel:%2B1-510-486-6900>_______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org <> >> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> <http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel> >> Link to this post: >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17942.php >> <http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17942.php> > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:de...@open-mpi.org> > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > <http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel> > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17952.php > <http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17952.php> > > > > -- > Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov > <mailto:phhargr...@lbl.gov> > Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group > Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900 > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/09/17954.php
