[hwloc-devel] Create success (hwloc r1.0a1r1721)

2010-01-30 Thread MPI Team
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success. Snapshot: hwloc 1.0a1r1721 Start time: Sat Jan 30 21:01:02 EST 2010 End time: Sat Jan 30 21:03:11 EST 2010 Your friendly daemon, Cyrador

Re: [hwloc-devel] processor restriction + lookup of pid for 1.0

2010-01-30 Thread Ashley Pittman
On 30 Jan 2010, at 14:57, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Samuel Thibault, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 15:55:00 +0100, a écrit : >> #21 implicitly does: "what cpuset they're bound to" is just an example. >> A configuration function hwloc_topology_set_pid(topology, pid) would >> mean that the discovery has to be

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 18:17:31 +0100, a écrit : > Wait, does WHOLE_SYSTEM also toggle the ignoring of offline_cpus in > obj->cpuset? Yes, I believe it has always been that way. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Brice Goglin
Samuel Thibault wrote: > Yes, if we weren't wanting to express contradictory things it'd be way > simpler, but we want to. I don't believe duplicating information will > help the programmer to understand things. For now, I can see three > usage cases: > > - An application wants to bind itself

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 17:40:29 +0100, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 17:34:32 +0100, a écrit : > > > >> But now that I understand all this, I wonder what application developers > >> will think about it. Most applications want the list of procs

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Brice Goglin
Samuel Thibault wrote: > Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 17:34:32 +0100, a écrit : > >> But now that I understand all this, I wonder what application developers >> will think about it. Most applications want the list of procs that are >> online and allowed. >> > > And that's what they

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Brice Goglin
Samuel Thibault wrote: > What about now (r1711)? > Yes, it's good now. But now that I understand all this, I wonder what application developers will think about it. Most applications want the list of procs that are online and allowed. So they'll have to compute the intersection of online and

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 17:05:29 +0100, a écrit : > >> What's the difference between obj->cpuset and the other obj->*cpuset ? > >> Some documentation is missing there, > >> > > > > Is the documentation on the right of the fields not sufficient? > > > > No at all... What about

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Brice Goglin
Samuel Thibault wrote: > Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 16:42:34 +0100, a écrit : > >> Do we want a #define HWLOC_API_VERSION to help people support both the >> 0.9 and the 1.0 APIs at runtime ? >> > > At build time you mean? > Yes. >> What's the difference between obj->cpuset and

Re: [hwloc-devel] random api questions

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 16:42:34 +0100, a écrit : > Do we want a #define HWLOC_API_VERSION to help people support both the > 0.9 and the 1.0 APIs at runtime ? At build time you mean? > What's the difference between obj->cpuset and the other obj->*cpuset ? > Some documentation is missing

Re: [hwloc-devel] processor restriction + lookup of pid for 1.0

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 15:55:00 +0100, a écrit : > > 1) hwloc_topology_from_cpu/membind(pid) (or cpuset as argument) => > > restrict topology to given cpu/membind > > 2) hwloc_topology_get_from_pid(pid) reads both cpu/membind and > > administrative restrictions from another process

Re: [hwloc-devel] processor restriction + lookup of pid for 1.0

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 15:55:00 +0100, a écrit : > #21 implicitly does: "what cpuset they're bound to" is just an example. > A configuration function hwloc_topology_set_pid(topology, pid) would > mean that the discovery has to be done from the view of the given pid, > and thus the

Re: [hwloc-devel] processor restriction + lookup of pid for 1.0

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 15:47:26 +0100, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 15:32:51 +0100, a écrit : > > > >> I still don't see much difference. In #12, you get_cpubind(pid=0) and > >> use the resulting cpuset to restrict our topology. In #21, you >

Re: [hwloc-devel] P#0 -> P0 for logical numbers?

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
With p/l prefixes: € lstopo -p - Machine(993MB) + Socketp0 + L2(2048KB) L1(32KB) + Corep0 + Pp0 L1(32KB) + Corep1 + Pp1 € lstopo - Machine(993MB) + Socketl0 + L2l0(2048KB) L1l0(32KB) + Corel0 + Pl0 L1l1(32KB) + Corel1 + Pl1 What I dislike is that this seems to bring odd words like

Re: [hwloc-devel] processor restriction + lookup of pid for 1.0

2010-01-30 Thread Brice Goglin
Samuel Thibault wrote: > Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 15:32:51 +0100, a écrit : > >> I still don't see much difference. In #12, you get_cpubind(pid=0) and >> use the resulting cpuset to restrict our topology. In #21, you >> get_cpubind(another pid) and apply the cpuset to restrict our

Re: [hwloc-devel] processor restriction + lookup of pid for 1.0

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sat 30 Jan 2010 15:32:51 +0100, a écrit : > I still don't see much difference. In #12, you get_cpubind(pid=0) and > use the resulting cpuset to restrict our topology. In #21, you > get_cpubind(another pid) and apply the cpuset to restrict our topology > as well. No: the

Re: [hwloc-devel] processor restriction + lookup of pid for 1.0

2010-01-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Fri 29 Jan 2010 22:48:13 +0100, a écrit : > I am looking at the remaining tickets for v1.0. Assuming there are no > "critical" warning anymore, and assuming we have done enough for people > to combine network topologies (manually for now), only 2 ticket remains: > #12 support