But, isn't the returned matrix merely and adjacency matrix? Distance in
steps? This doesn't encode a weight, such as latency does it?
Ken
-Original Message-
From: hwloc-users-boun...@open-mpi.org
[mailto:hwloc-users-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Brice Goglin
Sent: Monday, August 06,
Le 07/08/2012 00:36, Wheeler, Kyle Bruce a écrit :
> A, that's key! The documentation currently says "Look at ancestor
> objects from the bottom to the top until one of them contains a
> distance matrix that matches the objects exactly", which suggests to
> me that it will traverse the object h
On Aug 6, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> You should not be getting a distance matrix for depth 0 above. You get
> one for depth=1 (the depth of NUMAnodes in your topology).
Ahh, ok. Well, at least I know what I *should* get now. :)
Sheepishly, I have to admit that I just figured it out
Le 06/08/2012 23:47, Wheeler, Kyle Bruce a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I'm failing to understand what hwloc (v1.5) is doing. I'm trying to use
> hwloc_get_latency() to determine the distance between two cores.
>
> The two cores are on different sockets. According to libnuma's numactl, the
> latency betw
I would add that the hwloc_distances_s returned by
hwloc_get_whole_distance_matrix_by_depth(topology, 0) is: { 0, 0, 0x0, 0, 0 }
On Aug 6, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Wheeler, Kyle Bruce wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm failing to understand what hwloc (v1.5) is doing. I'm trying to use
> hwloc_get_latency() to
Hello,
I'm failing to understand what hwloc (v1.5) is doing. I'm trying to use
hwloc_get_latency() to determine the distance between two cores.
The two cores are on different sockets. According to libnuma's numactl, the
latency between the two sockets is 20, whereas between cores on the same so
