Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.1a1r2050
Start time: Tue May 4 21:01:04 EDT 2010
End time: Tue May 4 21:02:59 EDT 2010
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
I'm told by my local Microsoft rep that Windows does not currently expose the
total number of pages per numa node.
Do we document that these numbers on Windows are *available* memory?
On May 3, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Brice Goglin, le Tue 04 May 2010 00:15:42 +0200, a écrit
On 4 May 2010, at 15:27, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> One thing to be careful with a run-time check is that you might not want
> *all* processes on a box to try to alloc a sysv segment, fork a child, try to
> connect, ...etc. With large count boxen, you might run out of sysv shmem
> segments if all
If there's a sleep(1) in the run-time test, that would be an annoying source of
delay in the startup of a job. This is not a deal-breaker, but it would be
nice(r) if there was a "fast" run-time check that could be checked during the
sysv selection logic (i.e., sysv could disqualify itself if
On May 4 2010, Terry Dontje wrote:
Ralph Castain wrote:
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes
the same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it
configured in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other
Linux systems correctly? I think
On May 4, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May 4, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
>>
>>> Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the
>>> same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured in
>>>
Ralph Castain wrote:
On May 4, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes
the same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it
configured in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other
Linux systems
On May 4, 2010, at 3:45 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the same
> in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured in the new
> SysV SM will those bits actually run on other Linux systems correctly? I
> think
On May 4 2010, Terry Dontje wrote:
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the
same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured
in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other Linux systems
correctly? I think Jeff had hinted to
Is a configure-time test good enough? For example, are all Linuxes the
same in this regard. That is if you built OMPI on RH and it configured
in the new SysV SM will those bits actually run on other Linux systems
correctly? I think Jeff had hinted to this similarly when suggesting
this may
bgog...@osl.iu.edu, le Tue 04 May 2010 01:32:00 -0400, a écrit :
> @@ -326,6 +330,10 @@
> if (nr_tids == max_tids) {
>max_tids += 8;
>tids = realloc(tids, max_tids*sizeof(pid_t));
> + if (!tids) {
> +errno = ENOMEM;
> +return -1;
> + }
> }
>
Brice Goglin, le Tue 04 May 2010 07:54:47 +0200, a écrit :
> line 41 of src/misc.c in hwloc_snprintf():
>
> str = malloc(size);
>
>
> I am not sure what to do about this one... Is there any value we could return
> without possibly breaking the caller ?
0 seems relatively safe to
On 04/05/2010 03:57, Christopher Samuel wrote:
>
> On 03/05/10 09:57, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
> > 1.0rc4 is up.
>
> Running coccicheck on 1.0rc4 flags up this construct, I presume
> as an ambiguous construction:
>
> if (!topology->flags & HWLOC_TOPOLOGY_FLAG_WHOLE_SYSTEM) {
>
> That's at line
13 matches
Mail list logo
