On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> Why a ^?
>
> This was for Jeff :)
> When you specify which components to use in OMPI, you pass a
> comma-separated list, and ^ is a negation.
FWIW, we didn't use "!" for negation, because then you'd have to escape or
quote it on the command
On Sep 25, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Small fix: "noos" is actually currently named "none".
> I just checked that your code successfully uses it with HWLOC_PLUGINS=none
> But I now see that "none" is bad name here so I will change it back to
> "noos"
It took me all day to figure
Brice Goglin, le Tue 25 Sep 2012 11:08:04 +0200, a écrit :
> >> We have the "core_xml" component (generic xml support) and "xml_libxml"
> >> + "xml_nolibxml" backends behind that. I am fine with removing the
> >> "core_" prefix, but I wonder if we should keep the "xml_" prefix for the
> >> latter.
Le 25/09/2012 10:48, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Le 25/09/2012 09:49, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
>>> One thing which can be confusing for the user is that core_linux goes
>>> to the core os list while core_libpci goes to the additional list. It
>>> would probably be better to use a different class
Brice Goglin, le Tue 25 Sep 2012 10:34:29 +0200, a écrit :
> I am also going to add a hwloc_ prefix to plugin filenames because we
> obviously can't create a libpci.so (libtool even warns about this).
And it makes things clearer, I believe.
> XML backends could be hwlocxml_ (not hwloc_xml_) to
Le 25/09/2012 09:49, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> One thing which can be confusing for the user is that core_linux goes
> to the core os list while core_libpci goes to the additional list. It
> would probably be better to use a different class name. I actually don't
> currently understand what
Le 25/09/2012 09:26, Brice Goglin a écrit :
> On most OS, we already have multiple "core os" components, one native
> (linux, ...) with priority 10 and the "noos" one with priority 0. If
> nothing forces a specific component in the list (no env variable, no
> set_xml, ...), we instantiate the
Le 25/09/2012 08:43, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Brice Goglin, le Tue 25 Sep 2012 07:41:48 +0200, a écrit :
>> Le 25/09/2012 01:42, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
2) Plugin support
>>> One thing that doesn't seem implemented yet is to choose another OS core
>>> plugin, e.g. to use x86 detection on
Brice Goglin, le Tue 25 Sep 2012 07:41:48 +0200, a écrit :
> * Your HWLOC_PLUGINS variable is not about loading plugins, it's about
> enabling core components.
It could also be to use another PCI detection plugin that libpci.
Samuel
Le 25/09/2012 01:42, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
>> 2) Plugin support
> One thing that doesn't seem implemented yet is to choose another OS core
> plugin, e.g. to use x86 detection on Linux instead of /proc or /sys
> detection. This will be the same kind of thing with likwid / servet
> -based OS
Hello,
Brice Goglin, le Mon 24 Sep 2012 22:04:14 +0200, a écrit :
> 1) A rework of the backend infrastructure to make the core much more
> readable (basically all changes in *.[ch] files).
That looks nicer indeed.
> 2) Plugin support
One thing that doesn't seem implemented yet is to choose
I am thinking of merging the components branch in trunk and start
thinking about doing a v1.6 for SC.
For the record the components branch contains:
1) A rework of the backend infrastructure to make the core much more
readable (basically all changes in *.[ch] files). Now we add new
backends by
12 matches
Mail list logo
