Assuming people will confirm that ARM information isn't so simple, I
wonder where it's better to put architecture specific fields. With the
proposed solution, Intel and ARM would be different:
Architecture=x86_64
CPUVendor=GenuineIntel
CPUModel=Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz
CPUModelNumber=45
CPUFamilyNumber=6
and
Architecture=armv7l
CPUVendor=cardhu
CPUModel=ARMv7 Processor rev 9 (v7l)
CPUImplementer=0x41
CPUArchitecture=7
CPUVariant=0x2
CPUPart=0xc09
CPURevision=9
We could also merge those arch-specific into a single generic one:
Architecture=x86_64
CPUVendor=GenuineIntel
CPUModel=Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz
CPUModelNumber=family=6;model=45
and
Architecture=armv7l
CPUVendor=cardhu
CPUModel=ARMv7 Processor rev 9 (v7l)
CPUModelNumber=implementer=0x41;architecture=7;variant=0x2;part=0xc09;revision=9
The drawback is that you'd have to parse CPUModelNumber to extract
family and model.
I am not sure which one is best.
Brice
Le 28/01/2014 00:09, Brice Goglin a écrit :
> Hello,
> I have some code that seems to work. Here's what it reports below.
> Does that look ok to you?
> I had to modify quite a lot of things to make the parsing of
> /proc/cpuinfo more robust (the code is basically arch-specific now),
> so I am not sure we'll be able to backport this to OMPI.
> Brice
>
>
> * Sandy-Bridge Xeon E5 (Stampede)
> CPUVendor=GenuineIntel
> CPUModel=Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz
> CPUModelNumber=45
> CPUFamilyNumber=6
> * Old Nehalem-EX
> CPUVendor=GenuineIntel
> CPUModel=Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7540 @ 2.00GHz
> CPUModelNumber=46
> CPUFamilyNumber=6
> * Itanium
> CPUVendor=GenuineIntel
> CPUModel=Dual-Core Intel(R) Itanium(R) Processor 9140N
> CPUModelNumber=1
> CPUFamilyNumber=32
> * AMD
> CPUVendor=AuthenticAMD
> CPUModel=Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 865
> CPUModelNumber=33
> CPUFamilyNumber=15
> * MIC (Stampede)
> CPUVendor=GenuineIntel
> CPUModel=0b/01
> CPUModelNumber=1
> CPUFamilyNumber=11
>
>
>
>
> Le 23/01/2014 19:50, Ralph Castain a écrit :
>> That would be perfect! Thanks
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Brice Goglin <brice.gog...@inria.fr
>> <mailto:brice.gog...@inria.fr>> wrote:
>>
>>> Should be easy on Linux, sure.
>>> The model name is already known as CPUModel in hwloc.
>>> We should likely add CPUVendor (would be GenuineIntel or
>>> AuthenticAMD), CPUFamily (or CPUFamilyNumber if there's a name for
>>> these families?) and CPUModelNumber ?
>>>
>>> Brice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 23/01/2014 19:09, Ralph Castain a écrit :
>>>> Hi folks
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the current topology info, I see you capture the model
>>>> name for the socket, but not a couple of other key things Intel
>>>> could use:
>>>>
>>>> cpu family : 6
>>>> model : 44
>>>> model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5645 @ 2.40GHz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both the cpu family and model are important to us - any issue with
>>>> adding them to the "infos" array?
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> hwloc-devel mailing list
>>>> hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org
>>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hwloc-devel mailing list
>>> hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org <mailto:hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org>
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hwloc-devel mailing list
>> hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hwloc-devel mailing list
> hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
