Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

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

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] roadmap
From: Samuel Thibault (samuel.thibault_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-22 10:52:19


Jeff Squyres, le Wed 22 Sep 2010 13:37:12 +0200, a écrit :
> I think we should support memory binding, even if it does weird things -- i.e., dropping membinding support on a given OS shouldn't be an option.

That's why I'd tend to keep set_cpubind and set_membind, warning that
one may have impact on the other, providing a flag for those who really
care, and a binding guideline for normal users.

> And/or have an "atomic"-like function that sets the memory binding and returns the process memory binding?

I'm not sure to understand what this means.

> It would be good to put a sunset date or version on when hwloc_cpuset_foo will expire (e.g., 6 months from now or two major revisions form now [1.3] -- whichever comes last...?).

Ok.

> I'd also prefer a typedef than a #define for types (vs. a #define).

Sure.

Samuel