>In article <1167235772.3281.3977.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you
wrote:
>> once your program (and many others) have such a check, then the next
>> step will be pressure on the kernel code to "fake" the old situation
>> when there is a processor where <vague criteria of the day> no
longer
>> holds. It's basically a road to madness :-(
>
> I agree that for HPC sizing a benchmark with various levels of
> parallelity are better. The question is, if the code in question
> only is for inventory reasons. In that case I would do something
> like x sockets, y cores and z cm threads.
>
> Bernd
For sizing purposes, doing benchmarks is the only way. For the purpose
of Ganglia the sockets/cores/threads info is purely for inventory. And
we are likely going to add the new information to our metrics.
But - we still need to find a way to extract the infor :-)
Cheers
Martin
PS: I have likely killed the CC this time. Sorry.
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Knoblauch
email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de
www: http://www.knobisoft.de
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
