From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 05:40:45 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4966226; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 356846BE; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id bs8so9382357wib.5; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:40:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TYfeKmNSf2onnVhAIJddaJMwmYBpZElFVcKdPC0lNxQ=; b=XFUJbfkBZRua5jk9yQd59evGDscZskmWsdKAv9DZj1X9HH5K+gNzhkk5+xzfM1gg8D Sjx6qbHaO6E+z09XGtOQI09o6z21bFOXP/aEMZwglUicpjGSpC0Xzzbf10NQQSgC48Uv hVKrwkYnCtsjRWO5+f1pG1eJYdCG6nuWip2DOQYaxhmVTqZZ3yESeNQmx1kMlOrX4UEv n5tGEo82TNM93CN6NNPsV4HLsloq/IaTZ922Ku4pIB3frLOYHUpHnmzSZtr9/xnAqHkL saDycMWmmMwRtjdvGZPf50iv2WyHSK2AQnNbyRogrlrhnxUajcDj+UEqVxLnYxuL9/G/ lvUw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.198.164 with SMTP id jd4mr27839128wic.42.1418622043689; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.106.134 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:40:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141208153925.5df90587@prometheus> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:40:43 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HyperThreading on Intel Xeon Haswell, a benefit? From: grarpamp To: FreeBSD Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:43:15 +0000 Cc: FreeBSD Mailing Lists , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:40:45 -0000 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Jia-Shiun Li wrote: > Yes, Haswell has an additional store addr but still only one store data unit. > > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-review,3521.html > > But I guess they'd argue that they meant to saturate memory > channels with all available cores as possible first, and additional > threads are only for last resort. And that's probably what the most > schedulers do. > > I benchmarked it on a 4th gen i3. Buildkernel got 5~10% benefit IIRC. > The best way to tell is still to conduct tests with your own workload. > If the claimed 5% transistor cost brings 10% benefits, that's already > a win. OTTH how much you paid for it is another story. Where is the claim of "5% transistor cost" from? I don't see it linked in this thread. Is it in terms of $ as a sales feature to get HT/SMT, or transistor count to get it? I think SMT transistor count could change over CPU generations optimized. Any bump in price to get HT, is amortized over time. Any bump in performance due to HT, is integrated over time. A watt costs about $1/yr. If SMT is 5% faster, over 4hr saves 12 minutes of your time, which saves $n/day, which more than pays for purchase and watts. If it is slower, it hurts similarly $hard unless you turn it off and eat its purchase difference. Thus to see what people were seeing perf wise. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 04:45:06 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB90FBF; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E9C4209D; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l13so99624iga.9; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:45:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OK9TU41ESR4Dvyo5cPoFAtbfQRQtvowXHRI5VUbfZPw=; b=mJdJ8fpbiPstrwrCkopLKwrurUtKqJwwKv105EGOnKtaHjhmvWEk5B6s+jhSAZ61YR UPJq04sPb0B6nkUmUX3XfgrX+fgR2Pi3us0N44yr5/zE5Gtl+wDmjmUvhl3/Wk5nrM1N ME1f3dE74OJSldSb9OH55xMiTd/msAZfgiX9NPiKvBWduNJbgKwZTeDap2eUelNTyFSV ArCxTe+79RJNb6qR2+v5SKbCf00sr+We9QeAov7n+H9kYtdbRQEn/MqRicWp4AHWdV3L mDcjOm3NTNFRDMU0dGuOKnh9tPtDpm7mDNUkCcgJlhHx9IXuxiIOzM0FPjL6IZdtK1zp Hmqw== X-Received: by 10.107.154.198 with SMTP id c189mr5657499ioe.68.1418964305532; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:45:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.175.4 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:44:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141208153925.5df90587@prometheus> From: Jia-Shiun Li Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:44:35 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HyperThreading on Intel Xeon Haswell, a benefit? To: grarpamp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD Mailing Lists , FreeBSD Questions , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:45:06 -0000 On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM, grarpamp wrote: > Thus to see what people were seeing perf wise. HTT good for *some* workload? Definitely yes. HTT good for yours? It depends. It is not a solution to boost everything. You really need your own evaluation methods for your own real world workload. See if this extreme case motivates you. Script started on Fri Dec 19 04:11:36 2014 root@:~ # uname -a FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0 r275582: Sun Dec 7 22:29:51 UTC 2014 root@grind.freebsd.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 root@:~ # sysctl hw.model hw.model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz root@:~ # sysctl dev.cpu.0.freq dev.cpu.0.freq: 3600 root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc (...) type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes aes-256-cbc 542270.57k 570008.23k 577700.69k 579443.71k 578661.43k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc -multi 4 (...) evp 2168111.69k 2283320.41k 2309259.69k 2314799.72k 2323428.69k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-cbc -multi 8 (...) evp 3720872.65k 4373485.85k 4564089.08k 4615834.28k 4621740.71k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm (...) type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes aes-256-gcm 372850.59k 941017.15k 1402284.69k 1518668.74k 1552422.23k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm -multi 4 (...) evp 1492887.94k 3132772.74k 4501002.29k 4929483.52k 5101510.17k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-gcm -multi 8 (...) evp 1924978.05k 4533256.96k 6764018.70k 7538217.64k 7985778.30k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-ctr (...) type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes aes-256-ctr 491349.11k 1550444.11k 2372213.47k 2755245.59k 2879939.33k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-ctr -multi 4 (...) evp 1871084.37k 4992105.40k 7707692.29k 10242874.37k 10744955.05k root@:~ # openssl speed -evp aes-256-ctr -multi 8 (...) evp 2678304.52k 7575305.94k 11861913.17k 12971657.56k 13356457.98k root@:~ # ^D exit Script done on Fri Dec 19 04:16:08 2014 -Jia-Shiun. From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 19 07:35:37 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1B52EE; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:35:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B121418D3; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:35:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id n3so800782wiv.13; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:35:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ossn9MHsboVbJB4H2Uf60yLJunEBdg6fabX+dggLGZg=; b=tuFklD2Sg5gLbl45UetGNbSETT4/5NAIfzfk6AdaLcLcUuDK4vi+w+uvGaGCLFwsMJ 970iFUwFrpnHEPsqNjp2uw99dgfYq+W7uwsawD7Ga7FXx2HGLGdHxsD2LhSzrMA0ge80 V8eNCIcDHnHwMIJjE7xJH5wMUwbt0gyYJRSC63pl7cWjfmpALBPVhXc1NXGOrRW4yUsF Pa9T5B7h4iUhd7Cyra/cuUnPgPYweZWTkyV2pm9kqyIFHUwb+UXwMTyXSS5CkO3P5aNV j42ICC2Dt0hpeoUHKPZ8OX6xIn+KIO5EZH02ctoHRwrd/2DE6egxrlCXV7+y9AM1iUbw ObCw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.92.37 with SMTP id cj5mr11731812wjb.81.1418974535090; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.106.134 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:35:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141208153925.5df90587@prometheus> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 02:35:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HyperThreading on Intel Xeon Haswell, a benefit? From: grarpamp To: FreeBSD Mailing Lists Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: FreeBSD Questions , "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:35:37 -0000 On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Jia-Shiun Li wrote: > You really need your own evaluation methods for your own real world workload. Of course. Yet many users here might like to compare common things: o make buildworld times o iozone if disks are not limiting factor o openssl speed as below o etc > See if this extreme case motivates you. Not much since it provides no information regarding HTT. It doesn't, at minimum: o State whether HTT was on or off. o Show the results of two runs, one with HTT on, one with HTT off.