I realised that not everyone on this list might be able to access the IEEE paper I pointed-out, so I will include the abstract and some paragraphs from the paper which I have included below.
Also of interest (and should be available to all): Fedorova et al. 2005. Performance of Multithreaded Chip Multiprocessors And Implications For Operating System Design. Usenix 2005. http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/margo/papers/usenix05/paper.pdf "Abstract: We investigated how operating system design should be adapted for multithreaded chip multiprocessors (CMT) – a new generation of processors that exploit thread-level parallelism to mask the memory latency in modern workloads. We determined that the L2 cache is a critical shared resource on CMT and that an insufficient amount of L2 cache can undermine the ability to hide memory latency on these processors. To use the L2 cache as efficiently as possible, we propose an L2-conscious scheduling algorithm and quantify its performance potential. Using this algorithm it is possible to reduce miss ratios in the L2 cache by 25-37% and improve processor throughput by 27-45%." From Lundberg, L. 1997: Abstract: "The default scheduling algorithm in Solaris and other operating systems may result in frequent relocation of threads at run-time. Excessive thread relocation cause poor memory performance. This can be avoided by binding threads to processors. However, binding threads to processors may result in an unbalanced load. By considering a previously obtained theoretical result and by evaluating a set of multithreaded Solaris programs using a multiprocessor with 8 processors, we are able to bound the maximum performance loss due to binding threads, The theoretical result is also recapitulated. By evaluating another set of multithreaded programs, we show that the gain of binding threads to processors may be substantial, particularly for programs with fine grained parallelism." First paragraph: "The thread concept in Solaris [3][5] and other operating systems makes it possible to write multithreaded programs, which can be executed in parallel on a multiprocessor. Previous experience from real world programs [4] show that, using the default scheduling algorithm in Solaris, threads are frequently relocated from one processor to another at run-time. After each such relocation, the code and data associated with the relocated thread is moved from the cache memory of the 0113 processor to the cache of the new processor. This reduces the performance. Run-time relocation of threads to processors can also result in unpredictable response times. This is a problem in systems which operate in a real-time environment. In order to avoid poor memory performance and unpredictable real-time behaviour due to frequent thread relocation, threads can be bound to processors using the processor-bind directive [3] [5]. The major problem with binding threads is that one can end up with an unbalanced load, i.e. some processors may be extremely busy during some time periods while other processors are idle." -Glen On 21/04/2008, Glen Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And this discussion on bound threads may also shed light on things: > > http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Java/comp.lang.java.programmer/2007-11/msg02801.html > > > -Glen > > > On 21/04/2008, Glen Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BInding threads to processors - in many situations - improves > > throughput by reducing memory overhead. When a thread is running on a > > core, its state is local; if it is timeshared-out and either 1) > > swapped back in on the same core, it is likely that there will be the > > core's L1 cache; or 2) onto another core, there will not be a cache > > hit and the state will have to be fetched from L2 or main memory, > > incurring a performance hit, esp in the latter. See Lundberg, L. 1997. > > Evaluating the Performance Implications of Binding Threads to > > Processors. 393.http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/5020/13768/00634520.pdf > > for more info. > > > > If you are using JVM on Solaris on SPARC, you should take a look at > > the following links for tuning (the Sun JVM on Solaris SPARC has many > > more performance tuning parameters available), including threading: > > - http://java.sun.com/docs/hotspot/threads/threads.html > > - http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/vm/thread-priorities.html > > - > http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=180&context=SSEQTP&uid=swg21107291 > > - http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/performance.jsp > > > > > > -Glen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21/04/2008, Ulf Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This sounds odd. Why would restricting it to a single > > > core improve performance? The point of using multiple > > > cores (and multiple threads) is to improve performance > > > isn't it? I'd leave thread scheduling decisions to the > > > JVM. Plus, I don't think there is anything in Java to > > > facilitate this (short of using JNI). > > > > > > Are you talking about indexing or searching? You may > > > be able to use multiple parallel threads to improve > > > indexing performance. I don't think Lucene uses > > > multi-threading for searching; not unless you have > > > multiple indices, anyway. > > > > > > Ulf > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Anshum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have been trying to bind my lucene instance (JVM - > > > > Sun Hotspot*) to a > > > > particular core so as to improve the performance. Is > > > > there a way to do so or > > > > is there support in lucene to explicitly control the > > > > thread - processor > > > > linkup? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the > > > > opinions to me. > > > > The distinction is yours to draw............ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > - > > > > > > -- > > - > -- -
