Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Hardware Locality Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1255
From: Samuel Thibault (samuel.thibault_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-29 09:28:31

Jeff Squyres, le Thu 29 Oct 2009 08:32:09 -0400, a écrit :
> I think there's 3 cases:
> 1. If I specify STRICT, then I would expect strict binding to occur,
> or the function fail if the OS can't deliver it. I think we agree on
> this case.
> 2. If I specify LOOSE (or whatever the opposite of STRICT is -- and I
> see there's currently no flag for that), then I think you get whatever
> the OS gives you -- even if it happens to be strict. I.e., strict is
> a subset of loose. We might agree on this case, too...?
> 3. If I don't specify anything, I think this is an open question as to
> what happens here. I'd be in favor of making LOOSE be the default.

That is what hwloc already does.

> What I'm not in favor of is having it try STRICT and if that fails,
> try LOOSE. It feels to me like if the user wants STRICT, they should
> try it. And if it fails, they should be notified of that (through the
> function failing) and then they can choose how to react.

Ok, I just wanted to save the programmer the retry step.