Hi,
Crafty uses POSIX threads, at least according to this: * 22.2 We are now back to using POSIX threads, since all current Linux * * distributions now use the posix-conforming NTPL implementation * * which should eliminate the various compatibility issues that * * caused problems in the past. Louis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Petch" <[email protected]> To: "Michael Petch" <[email protected]>, "Louis Zulli" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 4:22:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Getting gnubg to use all available cores The other possibility is that the gthread implementation on OS/X is buggy/limited. Gnubg is pretty much at the mercy of libgthreads to do all the thread work. If its poorly implemented for the Leopard/Nehalem environemnt it may have the side effect of using one physical core (and 2 threads via hyperthreading). The chess program you use. Do you know if the code uses gthreads or does it possibly use OS/X native threading (Cocoas NSThread or Posix threads). On 05/08/09 2:02 PM, "Michael Petch" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm unsure how the architecture is deployed and how OS/X handles the > physical cores, but it almost sounds like one Physical core is being used > (Using Hyperthreads to run 2 threads simultaneously). I wonder if the memory > is shared across all the cores? A friend of mine was suggesting that people > may have to wait for Snow Lapard to come out before OS/X properly utilizes > the Nehalem architecture (whetehr that si true or not, I don't know). > > Anyway, as an experiment. If you run 2 copies of Gnubg at the same time > (using multiple threads) do you get 400% CPU usage? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
