I'm building a few systems using dual core Atom processors, and
have noted that when the system boots up it says it has four CPUs:
2 actual cores and 2 virtual ones. But performance is a bit
unsteady, and I'm wondering if it's going to be better to turn
hyperthreading off.
With
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:24:08 -0500, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote:
With hyperthreading, the FreeBSD scheduler simply acts as if there are 4
CPUs. Each CPU gets clock interrupts (which add overhead), and the
scheduler is naive about the fact that two of the CPUs are not
separate chips
On 29/08/2011 18:24, Brett Glass wrote:
With hyperthreading, the FreeBSD scheduler simply acts as if there are
4 CPUs. Each CPU gets clock interrupts (which add overhead), and the
scheduler is naive about the fact that two of the CPUs are not
separate chips and could be held up if its mate has
At 01:55 PM 8/29/2011, Bruce Cran wrote:
Actually, the ULE scheduler does know about HyperThreading and the
topology of such CPUs. I don't know what it does with the
information, but it probably works to optimize cache usage etc.
Alas, during a recent kernel build, I used the -j2 command
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote
Alas, during a recent kernel build, I used the -j2 command line option in
make and watched as the scheduler repeatedly assigned two instances of cc
(the most CPU-intensive program) to the same core.
During that process, I
On 29/08/2011 23:15, Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:55 PM 8/29/2011, Bruce Cran wrote:
Actually, the ULE scheduler does know about HyperThreading and the
topology of such CPUs. I don't know what it does with the
information, but it probably works to optimize cache usage etc.
Alas, during a recent
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:15:02 -0600
Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:55 PM 8/29/2011, Bruce Cran wrote:
Actually, the ULE scheduler does know about HyperThreading and the
topology of such CPUs. I don't know what it does with the
information, but it probably works to optimize cache usage etc.
