From: Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@shaw.ca>
To: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Virtualization Performance: Intel vs. AMD
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:03:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200911151603.40453.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B0080C2.1010309@bobich.net>
On Sun November 15 2009, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> > On Sun November 15 2009, Neil Aggarwal wrote:
> >>> The Core i7 has hyperthreading, so you see 8 logical CPUs.
> >>
> >> Are you saying the AMD processors do not have hyperthreading?
> >
> > Course not. Hyperthreading is dubious at best.
>
> That's a rather questionable answer to a rather broad issue. SMT is
> useful, especially on processors with deep pipelines (think Pentium 4 -
> and in general, deeper pipelines tend to be required for higher clock
> speeds), because it reduces the number of context switches. Context
> switches are certainly one of the most expensive operations if not the
> most expensive operation you can do on a processor, and typically
> requires flushing the pipelines. Double the number of hardware threads,
> and you halve the number of context switches.
Hardware context switches aren't free either. And while it really has
nothing to do with this discussion, the P4 arch was far from perfect (many
would say, far from GOOD).
> This typically isn't useful if your CPU is processing one
> single-threaded application 99% of the time, but on a loaded server it
> can make a significant difference to throughput.
I'll buy that. Though you'll have to agree that the initial Hyperthread
implementation in intel cpus was really bad. I hear good things about the
latest version though.
But hey, if you can stick more cores in, or do what AMD is doing with its
upcoming line, why not do that? Hyperthreading seems like more of a gimmick
than anything. What seems to help the most with the new Intel arch is the
auto overclocking when some cores are idle. Far more of a performance
improvement than Hyperthreading will ever be it seems.
But maybe that's just me.
> Gordan
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@shaw.ca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-15 23:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-15 12:22 Virtualization Performance: Intel vs. AMD Andreas Winkelbauer
2009-11-15 13:05 ` Neil Aggarwal
2009-11-15 15:55 ` Thomas Treutner
2009-11-16 10:12 ` Avi Kivity
2009-11-17 10:23 ` Thomas Treutner
2009-11-15 15:56 ` Thomas Treutner
2009-11-15 17:33 ` Neil Aggarwal
2009-11-15 17:54 ` Thomas Fjellstrom
2009-11-15 17:59 ` Neil Aggarwal
2009-11-15 22:29 ` Gordan Bobic
2009-11-15 23:03 ` Thomas Fjellstrom [this message]
2009-11-15 23:50 ` Gordan Bobic
2009-11-16 12:02 ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-16 12:10 ` Avi Kivity
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=200911151603.40453.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca \
--to=tfjellstrom@shaw.ca \
--cc=kvm@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox