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.
L#0 and L#1 are physically near because hwloc consider shared caches map
when build topology? Because if not, i don't know how hwloc understand the
physical proximity of cores :(
2011/8/4 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault_at_[hidden]>
> Gabriele Fatigati, le Thu 04 Aug 2011 16:35:36 +0200, a écrit :
> > so physical OS index 0 and 1 are not true are physically near on the die.
> They quite often aren't. See the updated glossary of the documentation:
> "The index that the operating system (OS) uses to identify the object.
> This may be completely arbitrary, non-unique, non-contiguous, not
> representative of proximity, and may depend on the BIOS configuration."
> > Considering that, how I can use cache locality and cache sharing by cores
> if I
> > don't know where my threads will physically bound?
> By using logical indexes, not physical indexes. And almost all hwloc
> functions use logical indexes, not physical indexes.
> > If L#0 and L#1 where I bind my threads are physically far, may give me
> > performance.
> L#0 and L#1 are physically near, that's precisely the whole point of
> hwloc: it provides you with *logical* indexes which express proximity,
> instead of the P#0 and P#1 physical/OS indexes, which are quite often
> simply arbitrary.
> hwloc-users mailing list
Ing. Gabriele Fatigati
SuperComputing Applications and Innovation Department
Via Magnanelli 6/3, Casalecchio di Reno (BO) Italy
www.cineca.it Tel: +39 051 6171722
g.fatigati [AT] cineca.it