Jeff Squyres, le Thu 22 Sep 2011 21:36:31 +0200, a écrit : > (SIDENOTE: reading this letter after I wrote it, I see that it sounds > overwhelmingly negative. Please do not take it that way!
Sure! If these are the only negative points of our API, it's actually a very positive mail ;) > 1. The depth-specific accessors are Bad. Given the warning language in the > docs paired with the practical realities that some people actually do mix and > match CPUs in a single server (especially when testing new chips), the > depth-based accessors *can/will* fail. Meaning: you have to write > application code that can handle the non-uniform depth cases, making the > depth-based accessors essentially useless. I believe this issue is solved by better pointers at documentation, right? > (2c) to find the set of any given Lx caches, you basically have to traverse > the tree looking for HWLOC_OBJ_CACHE *and* attr->cache.depth==x. It would be > cleaner if we could just look for HWLOC_OBJ_CACHE_L<whatever>. But then you wouldn't be able to look at OBJ_CACHE when you only want to care about caches, whatever their level. > 4. src/topology-synthetic.c emits error messages on stderr when you try to > import invalid XML. Already fixed, AIUI. > 3. It would be really great to have some kind of flag in each object that > says whether all of its children are homogeneous or not. > 5. The XML dump of the topology doesn't include all the support information, > such as whether you can bind to threads/cores/etc. These are doable, indeed (Thanks Brice for adding it to the TODO ticket). Thanks for the feedback, that's extremely precious to make hwloc what people want! Samuel
