[procps] Re: top: NUMA node CPU utilization support
- From: Jaromir Capik <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
Hi everyone.
I finally saved some time to look at the NUMA creature.
> > Good idea Jim, 3 distributions on the list, we can see what all three
> > want and decide then.
>
> Thanks Craig.
>
> I was worried you might be angry.
>
> Now all we gotta' do is hope Jaromir & Werner will talk to us...
Please, accept my apologies for the lack of my presence
when you were fighting with the evil.
I quickly went through the whole thread and it seems
you managed to tame the beast well. I like the final form.
However, I have a question related to the dlopen call.
The following command always returns 0 in my case
Libnuma_handle = dlopen("libnuma.so", RTLD_LAZY);
...and the following returns the handle
Libnuma_handle = dlopen("libnuma.so.1", RTLD_LAZY);
The libnuma.so symlink is only present when the numactl-devel
subpackage is installed (in case of Fedora).
$ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/lib64/libnuma.so.1
numactl-libs-0:2.0.7-7.fc18.x86_64
$ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/lib64/libnuma.so
numactl-devel-0:2.0.7-7.fc18.x86_64
Isn't it safer to always specify the major soname
version?
If the interface becomes incompatible, then it's probably
better to avoid loading the library at all. Don't know.
Please, let me know.
Thx,
Jaromir.
>
> Jim
Other related posts:
