(sorry for the delay in replying...) On Dec 9, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> 1. Will there ever be any differentiation between cache levels in >> hwloc_obj.type? I ask because in OMPI, we found that the various counting >> routines were not helpful because they only search by *type*, not by >> (obj.type, obj.attr->cache.depth). This was somewhat of a bummer; we >> basically ended up writing our own traversal helpers in OMPI because when >> searching for an OBJ_CACHE, we had to search on the tuple -- not just the >> type. > > What you need is just a way to convert OBJ_CACHE + cache.depth into a > hwloc level depth, and then use hwloc_get_obj_by_depth() and friends as > usual. This is actually included in ticket #41. However, ticket #41 is > blocked until #50 is sorted out because adding instruction caches may > mean that OBJ_CACHE + cache.depth does not always identify a unique > level anymore. Got it. > In the meantime, I could easily write a helper that you guys would use > for OMPI for now. I think Ralph did that already. > Adding new types OBJ_CACHE_L1... L3 may not help that much if we add > instruction caches. We'd need L1d L1i ... many possible types. Roger; I can see the need for a more generalized helper. >> 2. It would be helpful to have a member in the obj that represents the >> logical AND of online_cpuset and allowed_cpuset. > > I am never sure about all this. I don't like all these cpusets. Samuel > will answer better :) Samuel -- any thoughts? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
