On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> Number of threads Elapsed time User Time System Time
> 1 53:216 53:220 00:000
> 2 29:272 58:180 00:320
> 3 27:162 1:21:450 00:540
> 4 25:094 1:41:080 01:250
> Elapsed is measured by the parent thread, that is not doing anything
> but wait on a pthread_join. User and system times are the sum of
> times for all the children threads, that do real work.
> The jump from 1->2 threads is fine, the one from 2->4 is ridiculous...
> I have my cpus doubled but each one has half the pipelining for floating
> point...see the user cpu time increased due to 'worst' processors and
> cache pollution on each package.
> So, IMHO and for my apps, HyperThreading is just a bad joke.
I must be misreading this, it looks to me as though having threads running
HT is reducing the clock time, and frankly that's what I want. It may not
be as good as having more processors, but it certainly is better for
nothing, even for your application. I read that as about 10% faster, and I
know people who spend more on fans to o/c their CPU than the premium for a
More to the point, since you have no choice if you want to go fast or have
>2 CPUs, you get HT included. Clearly if you want good latency you don't
run SMP at all due to the extra locking, that's a kernel issue, not HT.
-- bill davidsen <email@example.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 22:00:17 EST