Jeff Squyres wrote:
> As a server vendor, using physical/OS indexes is actually quite useful to me
> (e.g., to ensure that the hardware and OS are playing nicely).
>
> My point is that everyone has a different view here -- we should just support
> both. IMHO, the common case is logical indexes -
On Dec 4, 2009, at 5:36 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> > It might be good to safely ignore 0x if it's present, but that's a small
> > feature enhancement that can be done at any time (I filed a future ticket).
>
> It seems to work actually :)
Hmm -- I don't think so...? "0x1" can't pass this test i
On Dec 4, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
> > It might be good to safely ignore 0x if it's present, but that's a small
> > feature enhancement that can be done at any time (I filed a future ticket).
>
> Maybe not relevant but it bit me so I'll say it here, using "%x" with
> sscanf on a s
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> It might be good to safely ignore 0x if it's present, but that's a small
> feature enhancement that can be done at any time (I filed a future ticket).
>
It seems to work actually :)
>> We might want to drop the Linux "cpuset" word and use "cgroup" instead.
>> Both are su
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 20:32 -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > > Ah, ok. To be clear, is it accurate to say that it is one of the
> > > following forms:
> > >
> > > - a hex number (without leading "0x" -- would "0x" be ignored if it is
> > > supplied?)
> >
> > We never used 0x there.
>
> Ok.
>
>
On Dec 3, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
[...snipped all that wasn't relevant to reply to...]
> > Has anyone contacted Penguin and/or XHPC (and/or any other SSI projects) to
> > see if they care about being supported by hwloc?
>
> Your friends Joshua from Penguin is supposed to contact
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I haven't looked at the argv parsing -- does it just strcmp each of the
> argv's and look for a recognized prefix, and if so, assume that it is a
> specification? If it doesn't find a recognized prefix, it assumes that it's
> the first argv of the tokens to exec (and there
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> > (shouldn't that say hwloc-bind, not topobind?)
>
> Right :)
Easily fixed -- just done. :-)
> > That would seem useful (slightly shorter than "proc:0.proc:1.proc:4"). I
> > can file a feature request if it's not already supported.
>
> Ac
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I was trying to use hwloc-bind this morning, and I was a bit confused by the
> syntax. I see that the help message says:
>
> -
> Usage: topobind [options] -- command ...
> may be a space-separated list of cpusets or objects
> as supported by the hwloc-mask
