[cfarm-users] Setting up GitLab CI for git.git on the farm

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Le 27/11/2018 à 02:05, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> > Cool stuff :-)
> > gcc110 (a power7, 2 packages, 16 cores, 64 threads):
> > $ hwloc-ls -s --no-io
> > depth 0:	1 Machine (type #1)
> >  depth 1:	2 NUMANode (type #2)
> >   depth 2:	16 Package (type #3)
> >    depth 3:	16 L3Cache (type #4)
> >     depth 4:	16 L2Cache (type #4)
> >      depth 5:	16 L1dCache (type #4)
> >       depth 6:	16 L1iCache (type #4)
> >        depth 7:	16 Core (type #5)
> >         depth 8:	64 PU (type #6)
> >
> > gcc112 (a power8, 2 DCMs (i.e. 2 packages, 4 dies), 20 cores, 160 threads):
> > $ hwloc-ls -s --no-io
> > depth 0:	1 Machine (type #1)
> >  depth 1:	2 Group0 (type #7)
> >   depth 2:	4 NUMANode (type #2)
> >    depth 3:	4 Package (type #3)
> >     depth 4:	20 L3Cache (type #4)
> >      depth 5:	20 L2Cache (type #4)
> >       depth 6:	20 L1dCache (type #4)
> >        depth 7:	20 L1iCache (type #4)
> >         depth 8:	20 Core (type #5)
> >          depth 9:	160 PU (type #6)
> >
> > gcc135 (a power9, 2 packages, 32 cores, 128 threads):
> > $ hwloc-ls -s --no-io
> > depth 0:	1 Machine (type #1)
> >  depth 1:	2 NUMANode (type #2)
> >   depth 2:	2 Package (type #3)
> >    depth 3:	16 L3Cache (type #4)
> >     depth 4:	16 L2Cache (type #4)
> >      depth 5:	32 L1dCache (type #4)
> >       depth 6:	32 L1iCache (type #4)
> >        depth 7:	32 Core (type #5)
> >         depth 8:	128 PU (type #6)
> >
> > so it gets p7 packages wrong, and it doesn't understand p8 DCMs.  The rest
> > is fine, and pretty etc. :-)
> 
> According to IBM, the POWER7 info is what they want to report :) I tried
> to convince them to fix their firmware/kernel but they considered it was
> better to report this strange stuff because of an obscure POWER feature
> ("LPAR" if I remember correctly).

*shrug*

For both the p7 and the p8, the packages is the only thing that isn't
correct; and packages is pretty useless for almost all purposes anyway.

Anyway, I think I like hwloc so far :-)

Thanks,


Segher