On Jan 12, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> This is not what I meant: hwloc_alloc_membind_policy's purpose is only
> to allocate bound memory. It happens that hwloc_alloc_membind_policy
> _may_ change the process policy in order to be able to bind memory
> at all (when the underlying OS does not have a directed allocation
> primitive), but that's not necessary. If hwloc can simply call a
> directed allocation primitive, it will do it. If the OS doesn't support
> binding at all, then hwloc will just allocate memory.
How's this?
* Setting this policy will cause the OS to try to bind a new memory
* allocation to the specified set. As a side effect, some operating
* systems may change the current memory binding policy; others may
* simply ignore the policy (i.e., not bind the new memory allocation
* at all). Note that since HWLOC_MEMBIND_STRICT was not specified,
* failures to bind will not be reported -- generally, only memory
* allocation failures will be reported (e.g., even a plain malloc()
* would have failed with ENOMEM).
>> + HWLOC_MEMBIND_INTERLEAVE = 3, /**< \brief Allocate memory on
>
> This is not really correct: if the threads were splitting the memory
> amongst themselves, FIRSTTOUCH should be used instead, to migrate pages
> close to where they are referenced from. I have rephrased that
What's a good simple example scenario when it would be good to use INTERLEAVE, then?
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}