On Jan 12, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > This is not what I meant: hwloc_alloc_membind_policy's purpose is only > to allocate bound memory. It happens that hwloc_alloc_membind_policy > _may_ change the process policy in order to be able to bind memory > at all (when the underlying OS does not have a directed allocation > primitive), but that's not necessary. If hwloc can simply call a > directed allocation primitive, it will do it. If the OS doesn't support > binding at all, then hwloc will just allocate memory.
How's this? * Setting this policy will cause the OS to try to bind a new memory * allocation to the specified set. As a side effect, some operating * systems may change the current memory binding policy; others may * simply ignore the policy (i.e., not bind the new memory allocation * at all). Note that since HWLOC_MEMBIND_STRICT was not specified, * failures to bind will not be reported -- generally, only memory * allocation failures will be reported (e.g., even a plain malloc() * would have failed with ENOMEM). >> + HWLOC_MEMBIND_INTERLEAVE = 3, /**< \brief Allocate memory on > > This is not really correct: if the threads were splitting the memory > amongst themselves, FIRSTTOUCH should be used instead, to migrate pages > close to where they are referenced from. I have rephrased that What's a good simple example scenario when it would be good to use INTERLEAVE, then? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
