On 5-ott-09, at 16:02, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
yes you are right, I was unclear, I meant that I would pass a cpu_set
struct by value (not always pass a pointer).
If one wants to later migrate to passing just a pointer, then
internally this struct
On 5-ott-09, at 15:31, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Fawzi Mohamed, le Mon 05 Oct 2009 15:23:23 +0200, a écrit :
well you assume you have a single copy of the whole system structure,
I am not sure that would be the case, and while the memory per core
is
growing, the memory per thread is not
, I think it might be worthwhile to keep
something size+pointer so that if the size is small say less than
size_t the cpuset is stored where otherwise there is the pointer...
or
something like that.
Indeed I would keep a minimal struct...
Especially with a large number of OS processor
(we've been having some off-list discussions about when to release
0.9.1 -- we decided that we wanted to add dynamic CPU sets as the last
feature before release. So now we've been talking about how/what to
do for dynamic CPU sets. It only occurred to me mid-thread that there
was no
