Jeff Squyres wrote: > FWIW, having a "simple" API like that might be a Good Thing...? > > I.e., just be able to bind to a specific thread/core/socket with a > minimum fuss/muss. Even if such an API would be mainly syntactic sugar > for other hwloc functionality -- there definitely is something to be > said for "make the simple things simple". It will definitely (IMNSHO) > extend hwloc's reach into a larger class of applications. Meaning: > there are a variety of hard-coded apps out there that we'll never see; > apps that run on specific servers for specific purposes, where the > developers hard code in there "bind to cores 1-4" or "bind to sockets > 1,3" because they already know the setup and this app is not intended > to be portable.
I am looking at what we could add to the main API/helpers, here's what could be useful: * get_obj_under_by_type(topology, type, index, subtype, subindex) returns for instance core 2 under socket 3. It's very easy (get_obj_by_type+get_obj_inside_cpuset_by_type). * Some people might want _under_under with 3 types/indexes. Not sure we want it, or want to make it generic with arrays of types/indexes... * Generic conversion routines between os_index and logical_index, like get_obj_by_os_index(type, os_index) and get_os_index_by_type(type, index) * Some kind of processor flag which tells us whether a physical proc exists and is online Brice
