I took the liberty of committing this in r3090. On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 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/ > -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
