On Fri 2010-04-02 17:40:15, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > Actually, he got the naming right. Even single-core cpus have cores...
>
> Except that of course back when multiple-core chips were nonexistent,
> nobody used the term "core". So that isn't really a convincing
> argument.
So what? Historically, each processor had just one core with just one
thread running. It was not important to distingush between sockets,
cores and threads.
Today, you can have single-cpu single-core SMP system. (Pentium 4 HT).
So, historically, using word processor was ok; these days... :-(.
> > Often, processors is understood to be sockets.
>
> So? That doesn't mean it's correct. "processor" is the traditional
> term and that is also used by existing APIs in many operating
> systems.
It is traditional term, and it is ambiguous these days. CoreDuo is
Intel *processor*.
> One also talks about "multiprocessing", not "multicoring". "SMP" =
> symmetric multiprocessing for instance. "cores" are just a current
> implementation detail.
You are right about implementation detail; what gthread is interested
is number of available *threads*, not cores, nor sockets.
That is 2 on P-4 HT, and 32 on UltraSparc T1 (aka Niagara).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
