Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:13:56 -0700 From: Nick Pavlica <linicks@gmail.com> To: John Pettitt <jpp@cloudview.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hyper threading. Message-ID: <dc9ba04405032616131b7f824d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4245F61E.2000300@cloudview.com> References: <c6ef380c050326061976f164b@mail.gmail.com> <1641928994.20050326192811@wanadoo.fr> <8C700529A2DFD74-A44-3A157@mblk-d34.sysops.aol.com> <439876144.20050326220638@wanadoo.fr> <8C7006AE7E80573-FAC-3B652@mblk-r28.sysops.aol.com> <49251524.20050326234521@wanadoo.fr> <20050326232753.GA64620@grover.logicsquad.net> <4245F61E.2000300@cloudview.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, > However even then this is not a good test of HT - the point of HT is to > improve throughput in multi thread workloads and the benchmark suite is > basically single thread. What would be more interesting would be to > run a test with a constant background load also running. In theory > the HT should do a better job of balancing the load between the > benchmark and the background than the BSD scheduler can on it's own. I > don't have an HT box here or I'd try it but I'd love to know how it > comes out if somebody is up for it. It would be interesting to see the results of the BSD & ULE scheduler on 5.4 Pre and 6 compared to 5.3R. --Nick --Nick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dc9ba04405032616131b7f824d>