Hi,
I put
#define MAX_NUMTHREADS 64
in multithread.h and rebuilt.
In Settings-->Options-->Other, I put Eval Threads to 64.
I then let gnubg analyze a game using 4-ply analysis.
According to my unix top command, gnubg had 69 threads and was using
188%CPU. So apparently all the threads were running (into each other!)
in one physical core.
In any case, increasing the max number of threads above 16 seems
trivial to do, unless I'm missing something.
Louis
On Aug 6, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Ingo Macherius wrote:
Do you use the calibrate command or a batch analysis of matchfiles?
The
former was shown to be of no value for benchmarks, see here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnubg/2009-08/msg00006.html
With calibrate I had the very same effect of high idle times during
benchmarks, unless I used at least 8 threads per physical core.
I am doing benchmark on a 4 core machine which iterates over #thread
(1..6)
and cache size (2^1 .. 2^27). Should be posted in say 3 hours, it
literally
is still running :)
Ingo
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Louis Zulli
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:21 PM
To: Michael Petch
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Getting gnubg to use all available cores
On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Michael Petch 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?
Hi Mike,
Sorry for the delay. I just had two copies of gnubg analyze the same
game, using 3 ply analysis. Each instance of gnubg used 200%
CPU. Each
copy was set to use 4 evaluation threads.
So what's the verdict here? Is Leopard simply not directing threads
correctly?
Louis
_______________________________________________
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
