Le 25/09/2011 21:05, Gabriele Fatigati a écrit :
> Ok,
>
> so, set_membind() merged with HWLOC_MEMBIND_BIND is useless?
It's likely the most useful memory binding case. It's similar to what
numactl --membind does for instance, very common.
> The behaviour I want to set is it possible?
I just sai
Ok,
so, set_membind() merged with HWLOC_MEMBIND_BIND is useless?
The behaviour I want to set is it possible?
2011/9/25 Brice Goglin
> Le 25/09/2011 20:57, Gabriele Fatigati a écrit :
> > after done this, memory is allocated not in a local node of thread
> > that does set_membind and malloc, bu
Le 25/09/2011 20:57, Gabriele Fatigati a écrit :
> after done this, memory is allocated not in a local node of thread
> that does set_membind and malloc, but in node of thread that touches
> it. And I don't understand this behaviour :(
Memory is allocated when first-touched. If there's no area-sp
My goal is to set memory binding policy for future allocations for each
thread.
So, according to definition of set_membind function:
"Set the default memory binding policy of the current process or thread to
prefer the
NUMA node(s) near the specified cpuset."
and according to definition of HWLOC
Le 25/09/2011 20:27, Gabriele Fatigati a écrit :
> if(tid==0){
>
> set_membind(HWLOCMEMBIND_BIND, node 0)
> malloc(array)...
>
> }
>
> if (tid==1){
> set_membind(HWLOCMEMBIND_BIND, node 1)
>
> for(i...)
> array(i)
> }
>
> end parallel region
>
>
> array is allocated on node 1, not node 0 as I
>set_membind done by thread 2 has no reference with malloc(array) done by
first thread, so why it influence the real >allocation of this array?
It doesn't.
In my example seems yes...
if(tid==0){
set_membind(HWLOCMEMBIND_BIND, node 0)
malloc(array)...
}
if (tid==1){
set_membind(HWLOCMEMBI
Le 25/09/2011 12:41, Gabriele Fatigati a écrit :
>
>
> * doing two set_area_membind on the same entire array is useless, the
> second one will overwrite the first one.
>
> But set_area_membind is for memory in general, not for a particular
> malloc. ( Is it rigth?)
It's for an memory area.
> set_
2011/9/25 Gabriele Fatigati
>
>> * doing two set_area_membind on the same entire array is useless, the
> second one will overwrite the first one.
>
> But set_area_membind is for memory in general, not for a particular malloc.
> ( Is it rigth?)
>
> set_membind done by thread 2 has no reference w
>
>
> * doing two set_area_membind on the same entire array is useless, the
second one will overwrite the first one.
But set_area_membind is for memory in general, not for a particular malloc.
( Is it rigth?) In my example, I'm doing set_area_membind for thread 0
before to do some allocations, an
Le 25/09/2011 12:19, Gabriele Fatigati a écrit :
> Hi Brice,
>
> >The flag says "when the first touch occurs and the physical memory is
> allocated for real, don't allocate on the local node (default), but
> >rather allocate where specified by set_membind".
>
> If is it already allocated for real,
Hi Brice,
>The flag says "when the first touch occurs and the physical memory is
allocated for real, don't allocate on the local node (default), but >rather
allocate where specified by set_membind".
If is it already allocated for real, how set_membind() can allocate on other
node?
So, what's the
Le 25/09/2011 11:14, Gabriele Fatigati a écrit :
>
> I report my questions in a different way (in the first question i did
> a mistake):
>
>
> 1) I don't understand the means of set_membind() function. Why I
> should to allocate in a node "near" my cpuset and not in my local node
> (where thread o
I report my questions in a different way (in the first question i did a
mistake):
1) I don't understand the means of set_membind() function. Why I should to
allocate in a node "near" my cpuset and not in my local node (where thread
or process runs?)
2) Which is the behaviour of HWLOC_MEMBIND_BI
13 matches
Mail list logo
