Le 29/08/2013 15:46, Jiri Hladky a écrit : > Hi Brice, > > I'm sorry I have missed that e-mail. I agree that the output as > originally requested would very long or take multiple lines. > > So what about this compromise - let's put into the graphical output > only release tag (uname_buf.release) > > uname -r > 3.10.7-100.fc18.x86_64 >
That's not a "portable" solution for showing something useful: On Debian, it's not perfect, you just get 3.10-2-amd64 but not the 3.10.5 hidden in there (need uname -v for that) On AIX 6.1, you just get "1" (need uname -v for the "6") On BSD, uname -r isn't too bad, uname -v sometimes help, but sometimes it's veeeeeeery long. Maybe just forget about the automatic way and let you call lstopo with something like --annotate-legend "Release: $(uname -r)" (and you deal with length constraints) ? Brice > It's short and has the most important information. > > What do you think? > > Jirka > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Brice Goglin <brice.gog...@inria.fr > <mailto:brice.gog...@inria.fr>> wrote: > > The problem I have while playing with this is that it takes a lot > of space. Putting the entire uname on a single line will be > truncated when the topology drawing isn't large (on machines with > 2 cores for instance). And using multiple lines would make the > legend huge. > We could make it optional. But if you have to remember to manually > enable this new option, why not just remember to export to XML > instead, you already have all uname info in there. > > > Brice > > > > Le 26/08/2013 15:11, Jiri Hladky a écrit : >> Hi Brice, >> hi all, >> >> I do run hwloc on different versions of Linux kernel when testing >> RHEL. Since sometimes kernel is buggy and does not detect the >> topology correctly it would be useful to have at the bottom of >> the graphical output of the lstopo not only host name but also >> the version of the kernel. >> >> Example of C code on Linux to write this info: >> =============================================== >> #include <sys/utsname.h> >> if(uname(&uname_buf) == -1) >> printf("uname call failed!"); >> else { >> printf("Nodename:\t%s\n", uname_buf.nodename); >> printf("Sysname:\t%s\n", uname_buf.sysname); >> printf("Release:\t%s\n", uname_buf.release); >> printf("Version:\t%s\n", uname_buf.version); >> printf("Machine:\t%s\n", uname_buf.machine); >> } >> >> Nodename: localhost.localdomain >> Sysname: Linux >> Release: 3.10.7-100 <tel:3.10.7-100>.fc18.x86_64 >> Version: #1 SMP Thu Aug 15 22:21:29 UTC 2013 >> Machine: x86_64 >> =============================================== >> >> >> Suggestion: on the graphical output of lstopo please add the line >> >> System: Linux, x86_64, 3.10.7-100 <tel:3.10.7-100>.fc18.x86_64 #1 >> SMP Thu Aug 15 22:21:29 UTC 2013 >> >> >> printf("System: %s, %s, %s %s\n", uname_buf.sysname, >> uname_buf.machine, uname_buf.release, uname_buf.version); >> >> Would it be possible? Any further ideas, suggestions? >> >> Thanks a lot! >> Jirka >> >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Jiri Hladky >> <hladky.j...@gmail.com <mailto:hladky.j...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Brice, >> >> we test linux kernel job scheduler. To do so, we run for example >> >> 1 >> 2 >> .... >> 16 >> 32 linpack benchmarks simultaneously. >> (upto the number of cores) >> >> For each group of jobs we have this output: >> >> =======2 simultaneous jobs======== >> PID #CPU #CPU #CPU #CPU >> PID #CPU #CPU #CPU >> ============================== >> >> where first column is PID of linpack benchmark and other >> columns is CPU on which the process was running with >> granularity of 1 second >> >> I would like to check the possibilities to visualize the >> results to the output similar to lstopo --top (see the >> attachment). I would like to write a simple utility which will >> * parse the above file >> * foreach timestep create an output similar to lstopo --top >> output showing, where each job was running >> >> How difficult would be this? Could you please provide some >> hints what API functionality to use? >> >> Thanks! >> Jirka >> >> > >
