Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Users' Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

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.

Subject: Re: [hwloc-users] Thread core affinity
From: Gabriele Fatigati (g.fatigati_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-04 11:41:05


now it's more clear.

Thanks for the informations!


2011/8/4 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault_at_[hidden]>

> Gabriele Fatigati, le Thu 04 Aug 2011 16:56:22 +0200, a écrit :
> > L#0 and L#1 are physically near because hwloc consider shared caches map
> when
> > build topology?
> Yes. That's the whole point of sorting objects topologically first, and
> numbering them afterwards. See the glossary entry for "logical index":
> “The ordering is based on topology first, and then on OS CPU numbers”
> I.e. OS CPU numbers are only used when no topology information (shared
> cache etc.) provides any better sorting.
> > Because if not, i don't know how hwloc understand the physical
> > proximity of cores :(
> Physical proximity of cores does not mean logical proximity. cores can
> be next one to the other, and still share no cache at all. Forget the
> expression "physical proximity", it does not provide any interesting
> information. What matters is logical proximity. And that's *precisely*
> what logical indexes express.
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> hwloc-users mailing list
> hwloc-users_at_[hidden]

Ing. Gabriele Fatigati
HPC specialist
SuperComputing Applications and Innovation Department
Via Magnanelli 6/3, Casalecchio di Reno (BO) Italy                    Tel:   +39 051 6171722
g.fatigati [AT]