From owner-cvs-all Fri Jan 24 10:21:45 2003 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD0937B401 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E643443F3F for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:21:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com) Received: (qmail 75635 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Jan 2003 18:21:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:21:43 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson To: Attila Nagy Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 identcpu.c initcpu.c locore.s In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Attila Nagy wrote: > Nate Lawson wrote: > > The patch merely enables an Auxiliary Processor on equipment that > > supports HTT. Thus, 4.x still has all its original SMP weaknesses that > > will lead people (eventually) to 5.x including the fact that only one > > process can be active in the kernel at a time. > > And what about performance? I mean those "Auxiliary Processors" are > "weaker" than the real ones, so scheduling CPU intensive processes to them > makes a weird assymmetry. In average for example with a dnetc client > what's better? :) > Running two processes with HT turned off, or running four of them with HT > on? I'm not sure what you mean by "weaker". If you have code that is multi-process and it runs faster on an SMP system than a single CPU system, then it is likely to run faster with HTT than without. Read the Intel pages to find more about HTT. -Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message