From: "J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>
To: Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Hyperthreading and physical/logical CPU identification
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:20:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020429222019.GA1732@werewolf.able.es> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7DF0@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> <200204292017.PAA25836@popmail.austin.ibm.com>
On 2002.04.29 Andrew Theurer wrote:
>
>> > I would very much like to believe that in this configuration,
>> > I am only
>> > running on 2 physical, 4 logical processors, but I am getting a 31%
>> > improvement (netbench) when hyperthreading is enabled. Thats
>> > why I want to
>> > confirm I am really only using 2 physical, 4 logical
>> > processors. Is there
>> > any way I can do this? (dmesg? /proc/cpuinfo?)
>>
>> Well the two alternatives are, either A) turning on hyperthreading enabled
>> the two virtual processors or B) turning on hyperthreading somehow enabled
>> the other two processors, right?
>>
I think you should post a more specific "this vs. that" comparison.
Guessing...
If you refer to:
- No hypethreading, box sees 2 processors, performance is 100%
- Hyperthreading active, box sees 4 processors, perf is _only_ 130%,
instead of 200%.
that is perfectly true. Each hyperthreaded pair of processors does
not perform like 2 independent ones, the share cache and other internal
things. So the usual performance improvement on a FOster Xeon is not
200%, but in the order of that 130% you get. Hyperthreading is like
'poor man' SMP.
But perhaps you alredy know all this and your question was following
other paths...
I will put my hands on a dual Xeon SuperMicro system, and will make
more tests, in a week or so...
Hope this helps.
--
J.A. Magallon # Let the source be with you...
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.3 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.19-pre7-jam7 #1 SMP jue abr 25 00:19:56 CEST 2002 i686
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-29 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-29 19:40 Hyperthreading and physical/logical CPU identification Grover, Andrew
2002-04-29 19:59 ` Andrew Theurer
2002-04-29 22:20 ` J.A. Magallon [this message]
2002-04-29 23:14 ` Jauder Ho
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-29 20:41 Holzrichter, Bruce
2002-04-29 18:31 Andrew Theurer
2002-04-29 22:41 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-04-30 17:00 ` Jack F. Vogel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020429222019.GA1732@werewolf.able.es \
--to=jamagallon@able.es \
--cc=andrew.grover@intel.com \
--cc=habanero@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.