Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756088Ab0A2W7X (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:59:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755992Ab0A2W7W (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:59:22 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:56260 "EHLO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755966Ab0A2W7V (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:59:21 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: kCUXvOOazarISVbPQ+h0TiYbS9fzawu1T7LcXIqkXJNR 1264805961 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0200 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=2EA=2E_Magall=F3n?= Cc: LKML Subject: Re: Hyperthreading on Core i7s: To use or not to use? Message-ID: <20100129225916.GC19420@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <6278d2221001260256q5f35457fye8baabcc333d40@mail.gmail.com> <20100127015018.42793269@werewolf.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20100127015018.42793269@werewolf.home> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1908 Lines: 43 On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, J.A. Magall?n wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:56:57 +0000, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > Well, with that i7 you have: > - 1 processor > - 4 cores > - 8 threads (4x2) And Turbo Boost, let's not forget it. > What does 'within the noise' mean for you ? > With the 4-on mode, it just takes 2x the time to do the work...(look at elapsed!) > So, assuming the kernel is 'intelligent': > - Using 4 threads, it takes 17.44, and scheduler is using 4 threads located > on different cores. > - Using 8 threads, it takes 9.50. So effciency is 17.44/(2*9.50) = 91% > Very good! So this HyperThreading is not like that old in P4s, works much > better. Even with each couple threads competing for registers and L1 (or L2?) > cache. > > So hyper threading is good, why should you disable it ? When for some reason it gives you less 'automatic overclocking' and your workload happens to benefit more from less cores with a higher clock, than more cores with a lower clock, I suppose. Which might just mean one in that situation should try the 'power aware scheduler' since it supposedly tries to idle threads/cores a lot more, which should make it easier for the active cores to overclock themselves. Using Len's userspace utility to track the real freq. of boosted cores might give some insights. It is in his pmtools package, available at: http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/utils/ -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/