This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
Gabriele Fatigati, le Mon 01 Aug 2011 12:32:44 +0200, a écrit :
> So, are not physically near. I aspect that with Hyperthreading, and 2 hardware
> threads each core, PU P#0 and PU P#1 are on the same core.
Since these are P#0 and 1, they may not be indeed (physical indexes).
That's the whole problem of the indexes provided by operating systems.
> If is it not true,
> using in a OMP PARALLEL region with 2 software threads:
> $ pragma omp paralle num_threads(2)
> tid= omp_get_thread_num();
> hwloc_obj_t core = hwloc_get_obj_by_type(topology, HWLOC_OBJ_PU, tid);
> hwloc_cpuset_t set = hwloc_bitmap_dup(core->cpuset);
> hwloc_set_cpubind(topology, set, HWLOC_CPUBIND_THREAD);
> i would bind thread 0 on PU P#0 and thread 1 on PU P#1, supposing are
> physically near.
No, because hwloc functions do not use physical, but logical indexes,
which it computes according to the topology. Use lstopo --top to check
the actual binding being used.