Hyperthreading in P4 Xeon (question)
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Mark Hahn hahn at physics.mcmaster.caWed Apr 3 11:16:28 PST 2002
- Previous message: DHCP Help Again
- Next message: Linux Software RAID5 Performance
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> I can amplify that point. A commercial CFD application ran significantly > slower using 4 threads vs 2 on a dual Prestonia system. Anything memory > limited will probably behave the same way. well, it's an interesting issue. afaikt, the benefit of HT depends on what degree your app leaves idle resources. for instance, if everything you run is thrashing your dram bandwidth (big arrays, perhaps), then forget HT - it doesn't add extra dimms! similarly, if the CPU has just one fsqrt unit, and that's your bottleneck, HT doesn't add more units. there are other resource nonlinearities, like cache hitrate - the same effect that gives rise to superlinear SMP speedup will slaughter some apps run on HT... but if there's other work to be done while one thread is spinning sqrt's, ie, there are idle resources, then a thread that uses them will show HT profit... in some sense, HT works precisely when the system's resources *don't* match the optimal set your app wants. I wonder if/when Intel will start pouring in hordes of extra functional units, since another 50M transistors will only improve the cache hit rate a little bit... of course, it's also true that HT makes bigger TLB's and more associative caches attractive...
- Previous message: DHCP Help Again
- Next message: Linux Software RAID5 Performance
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
