Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:25:23 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: Kian Mohageri <kian.mohageri@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xeon 2.8GHz SMP/NOT test results Message-ID: <4533F8C3.90301@fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <fee88ee40610161359t537c2768tacd5d8192befe688@mail.gmail.com> References: <fee88ee40610151610g4af70cbfi1b79ed256cc78995@mail.gmail.com> <f ee88ee40610161115y5df70233te4f403c55331962c@mail.gmail.com> <4533EE53.90106 03@fer.hr> <fee88ee40610161359t537c2768tacd5d8192befe688@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kian Mohageri wrote: > I noticed somebody suggested trying SMP with hyperthreading disabled > in the BIOS, and I'm a little bit confused as to what sort of results > should I expect from that. To see how much overhead does the SMP support in kernel bring, as compared to the UP kernel. There's a relatively big difference in how internal scheduling and synchronization works in these two cases. The purpose of the benchmark is to show if, in the long term, the SMP kernel could be made the default one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4533F8C3.90301>