Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:21:43 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 identcpu.c initcpu.c locore.s Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0301241018340.75548-100000@root.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0301241002530.21553-100000@scribble.fsn.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0301241018340.75548-100000>