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
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
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
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
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
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
