From owner-freebsd-smp Sun Mar 16 13:41:29 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2736B37B401 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DB843F3F for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:41:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (IDENT:brdavis@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2GLfPJu005454; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:41:25 -0800 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h2GLfOcS005453; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:41:24 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:41:24 -0800 From: Brooks Davis To: Andy Isaacson Cc: Brooks Davis , smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: weird power usage on dual Xeon Message-ID: <20030316134124.B4374@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> References: <20030314174113.A16583@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20030315010321.A12293@hexapodia.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030315010321.A12293@hexapodia.org>; from adi@hexapodia.org on Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 01:03:21AM -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) on odin.ac.hmc.edu Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 01:03:21AM -0600, Andy Isaacson wrote: >=20 > Do you get a different answer if you run only two copies of SETI? I > can't imagine that their FFT routine takes kindly to having to share L1 > cache, perhaps it's spending all its time waiting for the L2... and do > you actually process more work units per hour with 4 SETI processes > running on HT as opposed to 2 SETIs without HT? I kinda doubt it, but > would welcome real information. Given the way our schedular handles HTT (it doesn't) you're just as likely to end up with two SETI procs on one CPU as with them on different CPUs. In any case, SETI actually gets fairly significantly better results when you run four with HTT enabled then when you run two without. With two I'm seeing about 4hr per workunit or one every 2hrs, with four I'm seeing about 6hrs per workunit or one every 1.5hrs. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+dO+DXY6L6fI4GtQRAsDsAJ94QfOL5w2oJIQPvAoKIMG+4ypeQACglU/3 AIoX+3v+oYSvlsB6w03QOXE= =nKy9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8P1HSweYDcXXzwPJ-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message