Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

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

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference
From: Brice Goglin (Brice.Goglin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-31 05:37:17

Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Is it a crime to use the full word "Processor"? At least on my machine, the output width is still far less than 80 characters, so the full word should be no problem. But I don't know if there are other strange topologies out there that would take up more space...? (it certainly would in the graphic output...)

Trying to summarize what was said:
* There is no output width problem in text mode
* There is a strong width problem in graphic mode
* "Processor": ambiguous wrt socket/die, and needs a much shorter
version in the graphic output
* "CPU": ambiguous wrt socket/die
* "Proc": ambiguous wrt socket/die, and also with Process
* "PU": beware that it'll need some thinking since we cannot bind
processes/threads on GPU and SPU. Could be an empty CPU set. Or another
PU object.

Anybody really against PU ? Otherwise I'll commit the attached patch and
maybe we'll finally release 1.0-rc1 one day :)

The patch renames PROC into PU, both in the core and tools. I added some
backward compat code so that the "proc" string is still converted into
HWLOC_OBJ_PU (but it's not documented).

We might need to replace some occurences of "logical processor" in the
doc with "processing unit". Or use both from time to time to make it
clear that it's very similar (and explain the difference somewhere).