Tony Breeds wrote:
> I have he beginings of a Fedora package.
>
> Using the 0.9.2 tarball the version on the .so is "0.0.0". This doesn't seem
> "right". I'm happy to code up the libtool fu to make the so version match the
> package version but is that what we want? I don't really expect that th
It looks like I spoke too soon on the fix. That solves the problem
but it keeps the Miscs from being created and in some situations I'd
like to keep the Miscs but not the nodes. The attached patch does that
for me.
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Michael Raymond, le Thu 19 Nov 2009 14:33:49 -0600, a
Michael Raymond, le Fri 20 Nov 2009 08:18:53 -0600, a écrit :
> It looks like I spoke too soon on the fix. That solves the problem
> but it keeps the Miscs from being created and in some situations I'd
> like to keep the Miscs but not the nodes.
Oh? In which situation? Can't you just ignore t
Our architecture has blades with two Nehalems on them, and the blades
are connected together in a CC-NUMA fashion. Each Nehalem shows up as a
Node and the blades show up as Miscs. I plan to use hwloc to facilitate
different patterns for striding the placement of processes.
In one pattern I m
Michael Raymond wrote:
> Our architecture has blades with two Nehalems on them, and the blades
> are connected together in a CC-NUMA fashion. Each Nehalem shows up as a
> Node and the blades show up as Miscs.
So you're running on the Altix UV with Nehalem-EX that SGI announced at
SC? Is there a
Hello,
Michael Raymond, le Fri 20 Nov 2009 08:43:10 -0600, a écrit :
> In one pattern I might want to place processes on all the Cores in a
> Misc and then move to the next Misc. A topology tree that looks like
> System -> Misc -> Core makes that easy. Having Nodes in there just adds
> unneede
Yes. Here's output from a small one of those with only 2 pre-release
blades.
Brice Goglin wrote:
> Michael Raymond wrote:
>> Our architecture has blades with two Nehalems on them, and the blades
>> are connected together in a CC-NUMA fashion. Each Nehalem shows up as a
>> Node and the blades
NUMAGROUP sounds fine to me. Misc appears to be working for me though
and I'd like to start shipping hwloc on all our boxes in the next few
months.
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Michael Raymond, le Fri 20 Nov 2009 08:43:10 -0600, a écrit :
>> In one pattern I might want to place proces
Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Nov 2009 15:54:43 +0100, a écrit :
> Introduce several numagroup types? How many? That's not easy to
> answer.
Or maybe we can add an "ignore" configuration function that also takes a
pair of depth parameters to ignore a range of depths for a given type.
Here you would
I wouldn't say no to the ability to flatten Misc / NUMA. As to the
current issue though, does my patch look acceptable? Thanks.
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Nov 2009 15:54:43 +0100, a écrit :
>> Introduce several numagroup types? How many? That's not easy to
>> answer.
On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Using the 0.9.2 tarball the version on the .so is "0.0.0". This
doesn't seem
> "right". I'm happy to code up the libtool fu to make the so
version match the
> package version but is that what we want? I don't really expect
that the ABI
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.0a1r1370
Start time: Fri Nov 20 21:01:02 EST 2009
End time: Fri Nov 20 21:02:57 EST 2009
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
12 matches
Mail list logo
