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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox