likwid-pin numbering inside cpuset

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've got an issue with likwid-pin when run inside a cpuset:

$ likwid-pin -c N:0 ls
INFO: You are running LIKWID in a cpuset with 2 CPUs, only logical numbering 
allowed
ERROR: CPU indices equal to 0 are not allowed
Failed to parse cpulist N:0

$ likwid-pin -c N:1 ls
INFO: You are running LIKWID in a cpuset with 2 CPUs, only logical numbering 
allowed
[likwid-pin] Main PID -> core 19 - OK

Why does the counting start from 1 when inside a cpuset? If you do it outside a 
cpuset, `N:0` is accepted. 

Done with r538

Original issue reported on code.google.com by wpoel...@gmail.com on 3 Apr 2015 at 1:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The question was: Should the Lua-API of Likwid be Lua-conform or use the old 
numbering that is not Lua-conform? Lua always starts its indices with 1 and the 
whole API respected this except the cpu expression code. I decided to be 
Lua-conform so all list indicies start with 1 now.

I changed it in revision 535 and starting with this revision N:0 in normal 
environment will not work either because N:x is internally transformed to L:N:x 
and handed over to the logical numbering function. Some for S0:x, C0:x, M0:x.
In my impression the N:x should be x threads in affinity domain N and not 
thread x in affinity domain N but this decision was made long time ago, so I 
don't want to change it now.

Original comment by Thomas.R...@googlemail.com on 7 Apr 2015 at 11:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Okay, that's fine by me. As long as the numbering is consistent everywhere.

Original comment by wpoel...@gmail.com on 8 Apr 2015 at 11:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The issue seems to be fixed then.

Original comment by Thomas.R...@googlemail.com on 8 Apr 2015 at 3:54

• Changed state: Done

[GoogleCodeExporter]

FYI:

The behavior was changed back to fit Likwid 3. We had an internal discussion 
and the result was that we cannot change the cpu expression behavior, the users 
are used to the old one and probably don't want to change their scripts.

Original comment by Thomas.R...@googlemail.com on 7 May 2015 at 9:40