Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:17:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:17:55 -0400 Received: from mg01.austin.ibm.com ([192.35.232.18]:37609 "EHLO mg01.austin.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:17:55 -0400 Message-Id: <200204292017.PAA25836@popmail.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Andrew Theurer To: "Grover, Andrew" Subject: Re: Hyperthreading and physical/logical CPU identification Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:59:51 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] In-Reply-To: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7DF0@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > I would very much like to believe that in this configuration, > > I am only > > running on 2 physical, 4 logical processors, but I am getting a 31% > > improvement (netbench) when hyperthreading is enabled. Thats > > why I want to > > confirm I am really only using 2 physical, 4 logical > > processors. Is there > > any way I can do this? (dmesg? /proc/cpuinfo?) > > Well the two alternatives are, either A) turning on hyperthreading enabled > the two virtual processors or B) turning on hyperthreading somehow enabled > the other two processors, right? > > I would think B would be highly unlikely. > > Anyone else who actually has HT hardware care to comment? ;-) > > Regards -- Andy Yes, those are the two alternatives. I agree B is unlikely, but honestly I thought a 31% improvement from hyperthreading seemed unlikely as well. Believe me, I am hoping situaiton A is the correct one! -Andrew - 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/