On Monday, November 22, 2010 05:57:34 pm Samuel Thibault wrote: > Samuel Thibault, le Mon 22 Nov 2010 17:33:15 +0100, a écrit : > > > -- using "p" is a good way to indicate "physical". But IIRC, we didn't > > > like "l" (for "logical") because it looks too much like 1 (one). > > > > > > I think we're open to having some kind of indication to denote > > > "logical" instead of "physical" -- any suggestions? Perhaps P and L > > > (vs. p and l)? > > > > P/L can be better than p/l, yes. Just "PU #0" is indeed probably not > > precise enough, and "PU L#0" will make people wonder why the L, and then > > understand why. I guess we can try to add this to an rc4. > > Thinking again about it: can't we just switch only lstopo to physical > numbering by default, and only for the drawn part? The textual > output (lstopo -) displays both anyway. We wanted to use logical > numbering by default to be coherent with other hwloc tools, but the > graphical/semigraphical lstopo one is very particular (I hope nobody is > crazy enough to parse its output), and in almost all cases people will > want physical numbering by default, other cases can be obtained through > -l. I'd even say 1.0.3 should switch too (v0.9 was only using physical > numbering in lstopo). > > Samuel > _______________________________________________ > hwloc-devel mailing list > hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
Hi Samuel, I do support your last idea to switch only lstopo to the physical numbering. I would also like to ask you to consider adding the Title to the graphical output so that users can distinguish easily if the graphics was created with --physical or --logical numbering. Adding single line to the top of graphics which says: "This graphics is using [physical|logical] numbering. See man hwloc for details." would make it clear. Thanks Jirka
