Re: [hwloc-devel] HWLOC_API_VERSION [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1741

2010-02-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
bgog...@osl.iu.edu, le Tue 23 Feb 2010 02:12:43 -0500, a écrit : > +/** \brief Indicate at build time which hwloc API version is being used. */ > +#define HWLOC_API_VERSION 0x0001 I was wondering whether it couldn't be automatically generated from the autoconf information? Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-03 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Wed 03 Mar 2010 09:56:42 +0100, a écrit : > I am asking people here, some are confused by all these > --logical/--physical outputs. One idea that came is to always keep the > logical index and print the physical index as an attribute. Something like: > > $ lstopo - >

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Wed 03 Mar 2010 11:56:42 +0100, a écrit : > > However, what to show in the graphical output? Printing both indexes > > will make the output very large. > > By the way, would it possible to print multiple lines in each objects? Should be feasible without much hassle. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1795

2010-03-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 04 Mar 2010 19:01:59 -0500, a écrit : > Can you guys check that X detection is still working properly for you? Works fine on my Debian, yes. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1809

2010-03-08 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sun 07 Mar 2010 20:00:07 +0100, a écrit : > Maybe hwloc-convert or hwloc-combine ? hwloc-cpucalc? (like ipcalc and ipv6calc) Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1809

2010-03-08 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 08 Mar 2010 06:02:17 -0800, a écrit : > hwloc-transmogrify Heh, it seems we have the same books :) Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Why are misc objects ignored by default?

2010-03-10 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Wed 10 Mar 2010 21:20:21 +0100, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > In hwloc_topology_init(), topology->ignored_types[HWLOC_OBJ_MISC] is set > > to HWLOC_IGNORE_TYPE_KEEP_STRUCTURE by default. Is there a reason for > > it? The problem is that ther

Re: [hwloc-devel] [PATCH] Use getmntent_r(3) to parse /proc/mounts lines

2010-03-11 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Fri 12 Mar 2010 00:03:37 +0100, a écrit : > Also, isn't getmntent (without _r) enough here? I guess it will have troubles if it is called concurrently in different threads: the value returned by getmntent is typically not dynamically allocated. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] [PATCH] Use getmntent_r(3) to parse /proc/mountslines

2010-03-11 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 11 Mar 2010 15:23:35 -0800, a écrit : > On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Bert Wesarg wrote: > > I do not know the policy from this library regarding thread safety, so > > I decided to be on the safe side here. > > What *is* hwloc's policy about thread safety, anyway? It would be

Re: [hwloc-devel] thread safety

2010-03-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Jeff Squyres, le Thu 11 Mar 2010 17:34:59 -0800, a écrit : > On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > What *is* hwloc's policy about thread safety, anyway? > > > > It would be odd to not be threadsafe, considering the target > > ap

Re: [hwloc-devel] thread safety

2010-03-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 12 Mar 2010 07:35:44 -0800, a écrit : > On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > I guess we a thread-safety section in hwloc.doxy to document that all > > topology modifiers (most of hwloc_topology_* functions, not all of them) > > cannot run concurrently. > > To

Re: [hwloc-devel] thread safety

2010-03-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 12 Mar 2010 08:05:04 -0800, a écrit : > On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > To support that, do we need to make internal variables and fields be > > > volatile? > > > > ?! I fail to see why we would need that. &g

Re: [hwloc-devel] thread safety

2010-03-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 12 Mar 2010 08:38:48 -0800, a écrit : > On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > No, because that will not automatically issue hardware memory barriers, > > which are needed on basically all architectures but x86 (which has > > in-order sto

Re: [hwloc-devel] [PATCH] Replace readdir() with readdir_r()

2010-03-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 23:37:57 +0100, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Brice Goglin, le Thu 18 Mar 2010 22:58:35 +0100, a écrit : > >> Bert Wesarg wrote: > >>> Make the linux backend more re-entrant safe by using readdir_r() instead > >>>

Re: [hwloc-devel] Change bind API.

2010-03-22 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bert Wesarg, le Sun 21 Mar 2010 13:31:14 +0100, a écrit : > I would like to propose an interface change for these function, so > that the caller provide the to-be-filled cpuset, to reduce the > alloc/free frequency. This is indeed better (and actually reduces the amount of code in hwloc), I have

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1840

2010-03-22 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bert Wesarg, le Mon 22 Mar 2010 12:20:58 +0100, a écrit : > > -static hwloc_cpuset_t > > -hwloc_aix_get_thisproc_cpubind(hwloc_topology_t topology, int policy) > > +static int > > +hwloc_aix_get_thisproc_cpubind(hwloc_topology_t topology, hwloc_cpuset_t > > hwloc_set, int policy) > >  { > >  

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 07:50:34 -0400, a écrit : > I think once we fix up this attribute stuff that Bert raised we should make > rc1. We still haven't decided what to do for printing logical vs physical numbers in lstopo. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 14:19:35 +0100, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 07:50:34 -0400, a écrit : > > > >> I think once we fix up this attribute stuff that Bert raised we should > >> make rc1. > >>

Re: [hwloc-devel] Attribute unsed not regognized

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bert Wesarg, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 11:09:05 +0100, a écrit : > AFAIK the correct usage would be: > > int square(int __attribute__ ((__unused__)) arg1, int arg2) { > return arg2; } > > I.e. the attribute is between type and name. Do you have a reference on this? For variables, the gcc

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 10:47:15 -0400, a écrit : > The output of "lstopo -l" is different than "lstopo -l -v" -- is that > intentional? Well, yes, it is supposed to display less information :) Which precise difference are you referring to? Samuel > - > [7:45] svbu-mpi:~/svn/hwloc

Re: [hwloc-devel] Attribute unsed not regognized

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 15:49:36 +0100, a écrit : > All these don't have any problem with the above. I mean, with putting the attributes after the variable name. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Attribute unsed not regognized

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thanks for the idea. Bert Wesarg, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 12:33:00 +0100, a écrit : > +#define HWLOC_HAVE(what) (defined(HWLOC_HAVE_##what) && HWLOC_HAVE_##what) Unfortunately some compilers (such as gcc 2.95) do not accept this. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Attribute unsed not regognized

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bert Wesarg, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 12:43:33 +0100, a écrit : > FYI: I don't know if this is hwloc or autotools specific, but there is > no build dependency on > include/hwloc/config.h.in. It'd tend to say that it is autotools-specific. For instance, we do not put anything special for

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1853

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 12:51:53 -0400, a écrit : > Does this work with compilers that (pseudo) impersonate gcc (e.g., icc)? Yes. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 14:15:50 -0400, a écrit : > On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > > > I like "Proc" instead of "P" even for the non-v output. :-) > > > > I am not against it, but I don't remember the reason for the initial > > change. Maybe because "processor" is

Re: [hwloc-devel] Attribute unsed not regognized

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bert Wesarg, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 19:39:51 +0100, a écrit : > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 17:01, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@inria.fr> > wrote: > > Thanks for the idea. > > > > Bert Wesarg, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 12:33:00 +0100, a écrit : > >> +#define HWLO

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 17:05:39 -0400, a écrit : > On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > Is it a crime to use the full word "Processor"? At least on my machine, > > > the output width is still far less than 80 characte

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1865

2010-03-28 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bert Wesarg, le Sat 27 Mar 2010 15:06:43 +0100, a écrit : > > +  if (needed_count <= ulongs_count) > > +    return; > > + > > +  while (ulongs_count < needed_count) > > +    ulongs_count *= 2; Mmm, this is actually 1 << (hwloc_fls(needed_count)), isn't it? SAmuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-31 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Wed 31 Mar 2010 11:37:17 +0200, a écrit : > We might need to replace some occurences of "logical processor" in the > doc with "processing unit". Or use both from time to time to make it > clear that it's very similar (and explain the difference somewhere). I'd say keep it in the

Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?

2010-04-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Thu 01 Apr 2010 19:13:23 +0200, a écrit : > Jeff Squyres wrote: > > There have been a few commits today -- are we ready for rc1? Give me the > > word and I'll make it. :-) > > I am done now (r1895). I'd like to fix the MISC objects so they are not ignored. Samuel, hates

Re: [hwloc-devel] comments on API changes

2010-04-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
Fawzi Mohamed, le Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:34:20 +0200, a écrit : > would be fine with me, planning to add al lot of flags? because there > is still lot of space to grow (and one can later switch to 64 bit... :) Just switching to 64bits would break the ABI. It's better to just use chars and be done

Re: [hwloc-devel] Embedding: is it worth it?

2010-04-02 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 02 Apr 2010 12:32:35 -0400, a écrit : > But to use an external PLPA/libltdl/whatever, OMPI's configure would just > call their configure ?! I'm not 100% sure what RedHat etc. do, but in Debian the policy wouldn't be to do this, but to just link against the existing

Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?

2010-04-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sun 04 Apr 2010 00:32:24 +0200, a écrit : > As I said in the past, we're trying to address 2 > different issues. I said we could have a "Group" type to replace the > current meaning of "Misc" and keep "Misc" for user-added objects only. That's what I meant by "fixing" misc

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1910

2010-04-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sun 04 Apr 2010 17:11:36 +0200, a écrit : > So, do we want something like: > 1) insert_misc_by_cpuset() to always insert below objects with same cpusets? > Might be better for some use cases, and worse for others... Having one default would be easy, it's just a matter of

Re: [hwloc-devel] Embedding: is it worth it?

2010-04-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:51:06 -0400, a écrit : > On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > But to use an external PLPA/libltdl/whatever, OMPI's configure would just > > > call their configure > > > > I'm not 100% sure what RedH

Re: [hwloc-devel] Embedding: is it worth it?

2010-04-06 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 06 Apr 2010 09:05:24 -0400, a écrit : > On Apr 4, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Why > > is it so? Can't the main ./configure call the hwloc m4 stuff or not > > depending on whether the internal or the external version is used? >

Re: [hwloc-devel] Embedding: is it worth it?

2010-04-06 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 06 Apr 2010 18:05:03 -0400, a écrit : > > So I still don't see why going back to ./configure instead of using m4. > > Mainly because: > > 1. The potential for maintenance difficulties in the future. > 2. I don't (offhand) know of anyone outside of Open MPI who would use the

Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?

2010-04-08 Thread Samuel Thibault
Just to make it clear: I'm done concerning 1.0 features. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] HWLOC_OBJ_GROUP & hwloc_topology_support

2010-04-14 Thread Samuel Thibault
Fawzi Mohamed, le Wed 14 Apr 2010 14:05:45 +0200, a écrit : > HWLOC_OBJ_GROUP > > I suppose that those groups still form a partition, Yes. > I know that was changed also due to my comments, but I am not sure the > change really better: the structure is not really hidden, so adding a > flags

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1961

2010-04-20 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bert Wesarg, le Tue 20 Apr 2010 17:55:10 +0200, a écrit : > > +#define GNU_SOURCE > > That should be: _GNU_SOURCE. Oops, typo indeed, thanks for the proofread. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] backward API compat or not?

2010-04-20 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Tue 20 Apr 2010 19:54:13 +0200, a écrit : > I tend to think that we should just drop the get_system_obj() and make > it clear that people have to fix everything, not everything except foo > and bar. I'd tend to agree. We should however mention the previous names in the

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1986

2010-04-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Wed 21 Apr 2010 09:04:11 -0400, a écrit : > On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Bert Wesarg wrote: > > > From that page: > > > > If you are writing a header file that must work when included in > > ISO C programs, write __typeof__ instead of typeof. See Alternate > > Keywords. > >

Re: [hwloc-devel] want 1.0rc4?

2010-05-03 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 03 May 2010 09:28:41 -0400, a écrit : > I see a flurry of windows-related activity over the weekend. > > Do you guys want me to cut rc4? I'm done with what I wanted to fix in rc3. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] want 1.0rc4?

2010-05-03 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 03 May 2010 09:57:09 -0400, a écrit : > 1.0rc4 is up. Send me a windows binary when you get a chance. http://dept-info.labri.fr/~thibault/tmp/hwloc-win32-build-1.0rc4.zip Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Windows 7 problems

2010-05-03 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 03 May 2010 15:57:37 -0500, a écrit : > Running lstopo on w7 (64 bit): > > - > C:\Temp\hwloc>lstopo > Note: GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx was never tested yet! > - Ooops, it seems I have forgotten to remove it. Now done. > Plus, the memory it reported was the

Re: [hwloc-devel] want 1.0rc4?

2010-05-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Tue 04 May 2010 07:54:47 +0200, a écrit : > line 41 of src/misc.c in hwloc_snprintf(): > > str = malloc(size); > > > I am not sure what to do about this one... Is there any value we could return > without possibly breaking the caller ? 0 seems relatively safe to

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r2044

2010-05-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
bgog...@osl.iu.edu, le Tue 04 May 2010 01:32:00 -0400, a écrit : > @@ -326,6 +330,10 @@ > if (nr_tids == max_tids) { >max_tids += 8; >tids = realloc(tids, max_tids*sizeof(pid_t)); > + if (!tids) { > +errno = ENOMEM; > +return -1; > + } > } >

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0rc5 is posted

2010-05-06 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 06 May 2010 08:17:53 -0400, a écrit : > hwloc 1.0rc5 is posted. Hopefully it can be the last! :-) > > (Samuel -- can you make the windows binaries?) http://dept-info.labri.fr/~thibault/tmp/hwloc-win32-build-1.0rc5.zip Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] rc5 = good?

2010-05-06 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 06 May 2010 13:39:43 -0400, a écrit : > Did you want to get those warning fixes in to v1.0? (r2074 - 2076) > > Or are they trunk-only? They concern rc5 as well, I'm just unsure they are really worth making yet another RC, as they have no impact on the behavior of hwloc at

Re: [hwloc-devel] Graceful abort for non-C99 compilers

2010-05-11 Thread Samuel Thibault
Pavan Balaji, le Mon 10 May 2010 20:56:19 -0500, a écrit : > I understand that hwloc requires C99 support. However, for compilers > that don't support C99, would you be willing to gracefully abort during > configure instead of failing at make time? Right, thanks. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Graceful abort for non-C99 compilers

2010-05-13 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Wed 12 May 2010 12:52:01 -0400, a écrit : > I just posted rc6 with the fixes for this. I have built the windows binary, available on http://dept-info.labri.fr/~thibault/tmp/hwloc-win32-build-1.0rc6.zip Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0rc7

2010-05-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
Good for me. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Cacheline sizes

2010-05-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Wheeler, Kyle Bruce, le Tue 25 May 2010 13:46:09 -0600, a écrit : > I agree that, inherently, cache line size has nothing to do with topology. > But on the other hand, it's particularly useful for parallel shared-memory > applications (to avoid false-sharing), The false-sharing part is where it

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc] #35: 32 bit builds fail

2010-05-27 Thread Samuel Thibault
hwloc, le Thu 27 May 2010 21:06:56 -, a écrit : > Anyone have any comments / suggestions about r2149 before I close this > ticket and move it over to the v1.0 branch? It looks good to me. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] misc questions

2010-05-28 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 28 May 2010 09:03:30 -0400, a écrit : > On May 28, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > ...actually, I'm not seeing where we use epstopdf in our build process...? > > > > I believe it's hidden somewhere in pdflatex or such call. &g

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r2168

2010-05-28 Thread Samuel Thibault
bgog...@osl.iu.edu, le Fri 28 May 2010 11:27:47 -0400, a écrit : > Add a backend info string, except in XML since we may not want to override > the one that we got from the XML file > > + add_object_info(topology->levels[0][0], strdup("Backend=AIX")); Mmm, this will probably need to be

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0.1rc1

2010-06-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 01 Jun 2010 14:03:47 -0400, a écrit : > So do we like 1.0.1rc1? I haven't had the time to test it at all. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] solaris 9 fixes

2010-06-03 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 03 Jun 2010 12:32:50 -0400, a écrit : > Were you expecting all those solaris commits to the v1.0 tree to go into the > v1.0.1 release? Or are those intended for 1.0.2? Well, I see no reason not to put them in 1.0.1 actually :), except that we need to test another rc. I'm

Re: [hwloc-devel] libhwloc.so version number

2010-06-03 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 03 Jun 2010 15:02:35 -0400, a écrit : > I think that hwloc's Libtool version number should go from 0:0:0 to 0:1:0. > > Can someone sanity check to ensure that's right? I believe that's right. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r2223

2010-06-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 18 Jun 2010 06:56:59 -0700, a écrit : > Just curious -- what's the intent of assigning to errno like this? (I ask > because I thought that middleware/applications were not supposed to assign to > errno) To convert functions returning the error into our convention of

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-users] hwloc and rpath

2010-06-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, I agree that rpath should be avoided. However, hwloc itself doesn't add any. Jirka Hladky, le Fri 18 Jun 2010 22:09:56 +0200, a écrit : > = > hwloc.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/hwloc-distrib > ['/usr/lib64'] So

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-users] hwloc and rpath

2010-06-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 19 Jun 2010 00:03:49 +0200, a écrit : > What is the output of gcc -print-search-dirs? Ah, no, I misread the configure script, sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec comes from ld.so.conf (that makes sense actually). Could you post your /etc/ld.so.conf (and any file that it co

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-users] hwloc and rpath

2010-06-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 21 Jun 2010 10:48:13 -0400, a écrit : > I still see -rpath being inserted in the final link step for libhwloc.so (SVN > build using AC 2.65, AM 1.11.1, LT 2.2.6b): > > /bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -std=gnu99 > -fvisibility=hidden -I/usr/include/libxml2

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-users] hwloc and rpath

2010-06-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Jirka Hladky, le Mon 21 Jun 2010 18:54:47 +0200, a écrit : > I don't have "/usr/lib64" directory listed in > /etc/ld.so.conf. However, "/usr/lib64" is considered to be the > default lib location on 64-bit system. Ok. And

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-users] hwloc and rpath

2010-06-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
James Laska, le Mon 21 Jun 2010 13:15:36 -0400, a écrit : > To note, if I understand correctly, adding '/usr/lib64' > to /etc/ld.so.conf or /etc/ld.so.conf.d/* should not be needed. I agree. > Anything in the standard Fedora library locations should be recognized > and not require an additional

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-users] hwloc and rpath

2010-06-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jirka Hladky, le Mon 21 Jun 2010 22:30:36 +0200, a écrit : > I'm not sure what's wrong. It seems like libtool is not smart enough to > recognize /usr/lib64 as default library directory on 64-bit system Well, on Debian it's not needed (and might even be harmful). Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc will be soon available as package in Fedora

2010-06-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thanks for your work! Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc is failing for Pentium D

2010-06-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jirka Hladky, le Mon 21 Jun 2010 23:40:14 +0200, a écrit : > It's dual core CPU with 2x1MB L2 cache. hwloc reports correct result only on > RHEL6.0 (public beta2) with kernel 2.6.32. > > hwloc fails to report correct results on RHEL 5.5 (kernel 2.6.18) and RHEL > 4.8 > (kernel 2.6.9). Please

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc is failing for Pentium D

2010-06-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jirka Hladky, le Mon 21 Jun 2010 23:40:14 +0200, a écrit : > processor : 0 > > > processor : 1 > physical id : 0 > siblings : 2 > core id : 1 > cpu cores : 2 This looks bogus indeed. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] PUs not located under cores

2010-06-24 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Thu 24 Jun 2010 18:28:18 +0200, a écrit : > > depending on the type of machine you're running on. > > It also depends on the OS and kernel version for instance. Not all > information is available, the only you can bet on is PUs under a system > object. At w

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc-ps on trunk doesn't seem to do anything

2010-06-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 25 Jun 2010 09:50:05 -0400, a écrit : > Sounds like this is just a doc bug, right? If so, I can fix. Probably, yes, please do. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] xml sample output

2010-06-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 25 Jun 2010 10:03:10 -0400, a écrit : > While I'm updating the docs in this area, can you guys send XML output for > dudley, hagrid, and emmett? Here they are. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] xml sample output

2010-06-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 25 Jun 2010 10:46:59 -0400, a écrit : > Before I do the other two, how does this look, formatting-wise? (see > attached) This looks good to me. Samuel

[hwloc-devel] Servet and hwloc

2010-06-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello Jorge, I've just noticed Servet in the ipdps 2010 proceedings. There are probably interesting things to do between Servet and hwloc http://www.open-mpi.org/projects/hwloc/ On one hand, servet could use hwloc to get binding implementations on various OSes. Indeed, Servet version 1.0

Re: [hwloc-devel] new version of docs

2010-06-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 25 Jun 2010 12:13:22 -0400, a écrit : > It's unfortunate that the PPC64 SMT image is so tall; it makes weird vertical > gaps on the prior page. :-\ Maybe you can output to xml, strip half of the numa nodes, and re-render it. That's want I actually do for Hagrid. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] new version of docs

2010-06-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 25 Jun 2010 12:13:22 -0400, a écrit : > Rather than sending another huge attachment, here's another copy, including > all the XML and some images from the IBM PPC64 machine in a new "portability" > subsection: > >

Re: [hwloc-devel] new version of docs

2010-06-25 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 25 Jun 2010 12:58:08 -0400, a écrit : > On Jun 25, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > > > > I'm uneasy with “PU#15, for example, changes location from NUMA node > > > #0 to #1.” The location doesn't have really changed, PUs have just > > > been renumbered. >

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r2270

2010-06-29 Thread Samuel Thibault
jsquy...@osl.iu.edu, le Tue 29 Jun 2010 14:32:59 -0400, a écrit : > +Note that upgrading the Linux kernel on the same PPC64 system > +mentioned above to 2.6.34, hwloc is able to discover all the topology > +information. Well, "almost" all: there's no socket information. Could you perhaps post the

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r2270

2010-06-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brad Benton, le Tue 29 Jun 2010 17:13:05 -0500, a écrit : > Sure...the tarball and output files are attached.  Ok, so the physical index is explicitly -1, Linux itself doesn't know it. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r2270

2010-06-30 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Wed 30 Jun 2010 09:47:34 +0200, a écrit : > I reverted a commit that was slightly improving Power7 support with old > kernels > but it was also preventing sockets with unknown id from appearing with recent > kernels. The P7 topology is properly detected for real now. With old

Re: [hwloc-devel] Servet and hwloc

2010-07-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Jorge Gonzalez Dominguez, le Tue 29 Jun 2010 08:30:58 +0200, a écrit : > Apologise if you receive several copies of this mail but I think the mail that > I sent yesterday was rejected. I actually had bounced it to the list > On the one hand, about the OS support, [...] > Thank you for

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0.2rc2 posted

2010-07-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Christopher Samuel, le Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:48:10 +1000, a écrit : > CC libhwloc_ports_la-topology-freebsd.lo > topology-freebsd.c: In function ?hwloc_freebsd_set_thread_cpubind?: > topology-freebsd.c:123: warning: passing argument 3 of > ?pthread_setaffinity_np? from incompatible pointer type

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0.2rc2 posted

2010-07-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Christopher Samuel, le Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:29:21 +1000, a écrit : > A simple ./configure && make distcheck fails on a SuSE > SLES 9 PPC64 box I have access to: > > make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/chris/hwloc-1.0.2rc2' > ERROR: Did not build both of the doxygen docs and README. > ERROR: This

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0.2rc2 posted

2010-07-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 20 Jul 2010 15:22:08 -0400, a écrit : > I think we're waiting for Samuel to get back from vacation to test on all the > other esoteric OS's / platforms. I have uploaded the windows build on http://dept-info.labri.fr/~thibault/tmp/hwloc-win32-build-1.0.2rc2.zip Still working

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0.2rc2 posted

2010-07-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 20 Jul 2010 15:22:08 -0400, a écrit : > I think we're waiting for Samuel to get back from vacation to test on all the > other esoteric OS's / platforms. Ok, tests done. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] Bug report: topology strange on SGI UltraViolet

2010-07-28 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bernd Kallies, le Wed 28 Jul 2010 18:09:28 +0200, a écrit : > > > topology is understandeable. I'm wondering about "Group4", which > > > contains the three "Group3" objects. lstopo should print "1534GB" > > > instead of "1022GB". There is only one "Group4" object, and there are no > > > other

Re: [hwloc-devel] Bug report: topology strange on SGI UltraViolet

2010-07-29 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Thu 29 Jul 2010 13:01:10 +0200, a écrit : > > To my opinion, the job hwloc does in forming "groups" is basically OK. > > Also the group content makes sense. > > We're lucky that it somehow matches the physical ordering, > but it is really meaningless given the distance matrix.

Re: [hwloc-devel] Support for solaris lgrp_affinity_set

2010-08-13 Thread Samuel Thibault
Terry Dontje, le Fri 06 Aug 2010 13:11:30 -0400, a écrit : > Is anyone looking at replacing the Solaris processor_bind calls with > lgrp_affinity_set calls in hwloc? I'm not, but patches would be welcome :) Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc-1.0.2 on SLES11SP2 does not honor cpuset constraints

2010-08-13 Thread Samuel Thibault
Bernd Kallies, le Fri 06 Aug 2010 18:13:06 +0200, a écrit : > > https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/hwloc/changeset/2360 > > > > libibverbs is only used during make check when it's available. > > There is a problem with this philosophy. We provide hwloc on our > machines in a network filesystem at a

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r2339

2010-08-19 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Sat 17 Jul 2010 12:34:02 +0200, a écrit : > Le 17/07/2010 11:47, Samuel Thibault a écrit : > >> +HWLOC_DECLSPEC int hwloc_get_membind(hwloc_topology_t topology, > >> hwloc_cpuset_t set, int * policy); > >> > > Mmm, I wouldn't have thoug

[hwloc-devel] hwloc membind interface? [Was: svn:hwloc r2339]

2010-08-19 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Changing the title for more attention by programmers :) What people prefer to give as parameter for the membind interface? A set of nodes (from a combination of obj->nodeset, or built by hand using os_index of NODE objects), or a set of cpus (from obj->cpuset)? OS interfaces take a set

Re: [hwloc-devel] Support for solaris lgrp_affinity_set

2010-08-19 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Terry Dontje, le Fri 06 Aug 2010 13:11:30 -0400, a écrit : > Is anyone looking at replacing the Solaris processor_bind calls with > lgrp_affinity_set calls in hwloc? I eventually added using lgrp_affinity_set(). Not as a replacement for processor_bind, as AIUI, lgrp_affinity_set()

Re: [hwloc-devel] Support for solaris lgrp_affinity_set

2010-08-20 Thread Samuel Thibault
Terry Dontje, le Fri 20 Aug 2010 06:42:11 -0400, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > >I eventually added using lgrp_affinity_set(). Not as a replacement for > >processor_bind, as AIUI, lgrp_affinity_set() doesn't permit to specify > >precise processors. > > I believe

Re: [hwloc-devel] Support for solaris lgrp_affinity_set

2010-08-20 Thread Samuel Thibault
Terry Dontje, le Fri 20 Aug 2010 07:21:56 -0400, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > >This is unfortunately not the case on the box we have at INRIA: > > > >lgrp 0 has 0 children > > > >while there are two cores on the machine. > > That may be due to the ve

Re: [hwloc-devel] Support for solaris lgrp_affinity_set

2010-08-20 Thread Samuel Thibault
Terry Dontje, le Fri 20 Aug 2010 08:29:18 -0400, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault wrote: > >The output of lstopo with --enable-debug given to ./configure should > >already be very good. > > > Ok, I'll see if I can wrangle some time in the future. Should I send > the res

Re: [hwloc-devel] lstopo pdf weirdness

2010-08-29 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Thu 26 Aug 2010 16:36:41 -0400, a écrit : > Here's two images, both from the same machine, both generated via hwloc 1.0.2. > > Note that the PDF image is missing some characters here and there. E.g., > "NUMANode" on the PNG shows up as "NU ANode" on the PDF. "24MB" on the PNG

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc powerpc rhel5 and power7 patch

2010-09-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Alexey Kardashevskiy, le Thu 16 Sep 2010 14:10:08 +1000, a écrit : > 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 and add >

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc powerpc rhel5 and power7 patch

2010-09-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc powerpc rhel5 and power7 patch

2010-09-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
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. > >

Re: [hwloc-devel] hwloc powerpc rhel5 and power7 patch

2010-09-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
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 shou

<    1   2   3   4   5   >