Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Hardware Locality Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference
From: Bert Wesarg (bert.wesarg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-27 04:31:40


On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 01:50, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
>> > Fair enough.  How about still just keeping "P" in the graphic output, then?  But "processor" in the prettyprint?
>>
>> IIRC, somebody said "PU" (for "processing unit") could be a good
>> solution. Otherwise, I am ok with "Proc" or "Processor", with a small
>> preference for the former.
>
> I think I still am uncomfortable with "proc" because it's too much like "process".  But that could be just me.
>
> PU might be suitable.
>
>> By the way, this is also what hwloc_type_string() would return. Unless
>> we keep it unchanged and just hack lstopo to use its own stringified
>> type name ?
>
> I wouldn't mind the hack (too much), but it does seem a little inelegant.  If we hate everything else, let's settle on "PU".

"PU" may also be a little future safe, when GPU cores become common.

Bert

>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hwloc-devel mailing list
> hwloc-devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
>