On 21/09/10 19:34, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Just a last question: is it ok to include the /proc and /sys trees you
have posted in the hwloc testcases?
That's ok.
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Wed 22 Sep 2010 02:34:12 +0200, a écrit :
> What values should I use for property which is not present? cache_size =
> -1 and cache_line_size = -1 or what?
0, as other backends do.
Samuel
Just a last question: is it ok to include the /proc and /sys trees you
have posted in the hwloc testcases?
Samuel
On 21/09/10 02:01, Samuel Thibault wrote:
+static int
+look_powerpc_device_tree_discover_cache(device_tree_cpus_t *cpus,
+uint32_t ibm_phandle, unsigned int *level, hwloc_cpuset_t cpuset)
+{
+ int ret = -1;
+ if ((NULL == level) || (NULL == cpuset))
+return ret;
+ for (unsigned int
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Fri 17 Sep 2010 20:01:46 +1000, a écrit :
> Regarding topology walking - there is actually nothing device-tree
> special in reading strings and numbers from a device-tree, it is just
> common functions which (I think) should be placed in utils/misc.c. I
> named
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Thu 16 Sep 2010 14:10:08 +1000, a écrit :
> 1. What should I change in my patch to have it committed into the svn?
> Specifically:
> - where do I put IBM-specific code?
I think it's good enough as it is now, since it's just a particular case
of the generic devtree
Closer look on the patch:
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Fri 17 Sep 2010 20:01:46 +1000, a écrit :
> Index: src/topology-linux.c
> ===
> --- src/topology-linux.c (revision 2443)
> +++ src/topology-linux.c (working copy)
> @@
On 17/09/10 00:57, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Thu 16 Sep 2010 15:57:47 +1000, a écrit :
- where do I put IBM-specific code?
Is the device tree linux-specific ? If so, it can stay in linux file as
long as it's not 30k lines :) We already have both sysfs and
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 16 Sep 2010 16:57:01 +0200, a écrit :
> I'm just asking to rework the function interfaces a little bit to
> have things already cleanly separated for anybody who would feel like
> adding another OS support or parsing .dts files some day, I believe
> that shouldn't be too
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Thu 16 Sep 2010 15:57:47 +1000, a écrit :
> >>- where do I put IBM-specific code?
> >>
> >Is the device tree linux-specific ? If so, it can stay in linux file as
> >long as it's not 30k lines :) We already have both sysfs and
> >/proc/cpuinfo code there anyway.
>
>
Le 16/09/2010 11:00, Alexey Kardashevskiy a écrit :
> On 16/09/10 18:49, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>
>> Do you perhaps happen to know where it might be on AIX?
>>
>>
>
> No idea, sorry. So what do we do regarding the patch?
We'll likely apply it, we just need to figure out where to put it if
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Thu 16 Sep 2010 15:57:47 +1000, a écrit :
> >Is the device tree linux-specific ? If so, it can stay in linux file as
> >long as it's not 30k lines :) We already have both sysfs and
> >/proc/cpuinfo code there anyway.
>
> It is powerpc-specific. It is mapped from the
Le 16/09/2010 06:10, Alexey Kardashevskiy a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> There are 2 problems with the current HWLOC code. The questions are at
> the bottom.
>
> 1. Old kernels (RHEL5.*) do expose some numa nodes via sysfs but there
> is no information regarting cache (L1/L2/L3) and CPU threads. RHEL6
> does
Hi!
There are 2 problems with the current HWLOC code. The questions are at
the bottom.
1. Old kernels (RHEL5.*) do expose some numa nodes via sysfs but there
is no information regarting cache (L1/L2/L3) and CPU threads. RHEL6 does
that. The proposed patch parses PowerPC's /proc/device-tree
14 matches
Mail list logo
