(sorry for the delay in replying...)
On Dec 9, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> 1. Will there ever be any differentiation between cache levels in hwloc_obj.type? I ask because in OMPI, we found that the various counting routines were not helpful because they only search by *type*, not by (obj.type, obj.attr->cache.depth). This was somewhat of a bummer; we basically ended up writing our own traversal helpers in OMPI because when searching for an OBJ_CACHE, we had to search on the tuple -- not just the type.
> What you need is just a way to convert OBJ_CACHE + cache.depth into a
> hwloc level depth, and then use hwloc_get_obj_by_depth() and friends as
> usual. This is actually included in ticket #41. However, ticket #41 is
> blocked until #50 is sorted out because adding instruction caches may
> mean that OBJ_CACHE + cache.depth does not always identify a unique
> level anymore.
> In the meantime, I could easily write a helper that you guys would use
> for OMPI for now.
I think Ralph did that already.
> Adding new types OBJ_CACHE_L1... L3 may not help that much if we add
> instruction caches. We'd need L1d L1i ... many possible types.
Roger; I can see the need for a more generalized helper.
>> 2. It would be helpful to have a member in the obj that represents the logical AND of online_cpuset and allowed_cpuset.
> I am never sure about all this. I don't like all these cpusets. Samuel
> will answer better :)
Samuel -- any thoughts?
For corporate legal information go to: