I'm also interested in re-igniting the discussion, if others are also interested. I'm curious about the current state of netloc, and what we all want it to look like. Maybe we should move the discussion to the devel list or have a teleconf or something to kick things off?
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Brice Goglin <brice.gog...@inria.fr> wrote: > If you really want the old netloc API now, you could try hwloc 2.x with > the old netloc. But that's certainly not maintained anymore, and that > only works for IB while the new netloc should have OPA and Cray support > soon. > > The plan should rather be to tell us what you need from netloc so that > we can reenable it with a good API. We hear lots of people saying they > are interested in netloc, but *nobody* ever told us anything about what > they want to do for real. And I am not even sure anybody ever played > with the old API. This software cannot go forward unless we know where > it's going. There are many ways to design the netloc API. > > * We had an explicit graph API in the old netloc but that API implied > expensive graph algorithmics in the runtimes using it. It seemed > unusable for taking decision at runtime anyway, but again ever nobody > tried. Also it was rather strange to expose the full graph when you know > the fabric is a 3D dragonfly on Cray, etc. > > * In the new netloc, we're thinking of having higher-level implicit > topologies for each class of fabric (dragon-fly, fat-tree, clos-network, > etc) that require more work on the netloc side and easier work in the > runtime using it. However that's less portable than exposing the full > graph. Not sure which one is best, or if both are needed. > > * There are also issues regarding nodes/links failure etc. How do we > expose topology changes at runtime? Do we have a daemon running as root > in the background, etc? > > Lots of question that need to be discussed before we expose a new API In > the wild. Unfortunately, we lost several years because of the lack of > users' feedback. I don't want to invest time and rush for a new API if > MPICH never actually uses it like other people did in the past. > > Brice > > > > > Le 04/04/2018 à 01:36, Balaji, Pavan a écrit : > > Brice, > > > > We want to use both hwloc and netloc in mpich. What are our options > here? Move back to hwloc-1.x? That’d be a bummer because we already > invested a lot of effort to migrate to hwloc-2.x. > > > > — Pavan > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:19 PM, Brice Goglin <brice.gog...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> > >> It's not possible now but that would certainly be considered whenever > >> people start using the API and linking against libnetloc. > >> > >> Brice > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Le 03/04/2018 à 21:34, Madhu, Kavitha Tiptur a écrit : > >>> Hi > >>> A follow up question, is it possible to build netloc along with hwloc > in embedded mode? > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Mar 30, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Brice Goglin <brice.gog...@inria.fr> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hello > >>>> > >>>> In 2.0, netloc is still highly experimental. Hopefully, a large rework > >>>> will be merged in git master next month for being released in hwloc > 2.1. > >>>> > >>>> Most of the API from the old standalone netloc was made private when > >>>> integrated in hwloc because there wasn't any actual user. The API was > >>>> quite large (things for traversing the graph of both the fabric and > the > >>>> servers' internals). We didn't want to expose such a large API before > >>>> getting actual user feedback. > >>>> > >>>> In short, in your need features, please let us know, so that we can > >>>> discuss what to expose in the public headers and how. > >>>> > >>>> Brice > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Le 30/03/2018 à 20:14, Madhu, Kavitha Tiptur a écrit : > >>>>> Hi > >>>>> > >>>>> I need some info on the status of netloc integration with hwloc. I > see the include/netloc.h header is almost empty in hwloc 2.0 and lots of > functionality missing compared to the previous standalone netloc release, > even in private/netloc.h. Am I missing something here? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> Kavitha > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> hwloc-users mailing list > >>>> hwloc-users@lists.open-mpi.org > >>>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-users > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> hwloc-users mailing list > >>> hwloc-users@lists.open-mpi.org > >>> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-users > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hwloc-users mailing list > >> hwloc-users@lists.open-mpi.org > >> https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-users > > _______________________________________________ > > hwloc-users mailing list > > hwloc-users@lists.open-mpi.org > > https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-users > > _______________________________________________ > hwloc-users mailing list > hwloc-users@lists.open-mpi.org > https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-users > -- Josh Hursey IBM Spectrum MPI Developer
_______________________________________________ hwloc-users mailing list hwloc-users@lists.open-mpi.org https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-users
