On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:18:17AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this)
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:18:17AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> > >
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The ordering Paul has, namely 0,1 for core0,smt{0,1} is not something
> > I've ever seen on an Intel part. AMD otoh does enumerate their CMT stuff
> > like what Paul has.
>
> That's more the natural 'direct' mapping from CPU internal topology to CPU
>
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The ordering Paul has, namely 0,1 for core0,smt{0,1} is not something
> > I've ever seen on an Intel part. AMD otoh does enumerate their CMT stuff
> > like what Paul has.
>
> That's more the natural 'direct' mapping from CPU internal topology to CPU
>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:27:48AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > The ordering Paul has, namely 0,1 for core0,smt{0,1} is not something
> > > I've ever seen on an Intel part. AMD otoh does enumerate their CMT stuff
> > > like what Paul
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 09:27:48AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > The ordering Paul has, namely 0,1 for core0,smt{0,1} is not something
> > > I've ever seen on an Intel part. AMD otoh does enumerate their CMT stuff
> > > like what Paul
* Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz (Dual core with hyperthread, Thinkpad t530, fedora
> > 24)
>
> Glad that it is not just me! ;-)
Got one too:
aldebaran:~> grep -i .
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology/thread_siblings_list | sort -t u -k
* Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz (Dual core with hyperthread, Thinkpad t530, fedora
> > 24)
>
> Glad that it is not just me! ;-)
Got one too:
aldebaran:~> grep -i .
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology/thread_siblings_list | sort -t u -k +3 -n
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> > with a total of eight threads. The "siblings" and "cpu
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> > with a total of eight threads. The "siblings" and "cpu cores" fields in
> >
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 08:10:49PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 08:10:49PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show
* Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> > with a total of eight threads. The "siblings" and "cpu
* Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> > with a total of eight threads. The "siblings" and "cpu
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> with a total of eight threads. The "siblings" and "cpu cores" fields in
> /proc/cpuinfo should show the same
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The CPU in question (and /proc/cpuinfo should show this) has four cores
> with a total of eight threads. The "siblings" and "cpu cores" fields in
> /proc/cpuinfo should show the same
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:55:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:49:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:55:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200,
On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:55:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul
On 07/12/16 08:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:55:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:55:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > >
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:55:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > wrote:
> > > >Hello!
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >Hello!
> > >
> > >So I ran a quick benchmark which
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:43:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >Hello!
> > >
> > >So I ran a quick benchmark which showed stair-step results. I
> >
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >Hello!
> >
> >So I ran a quick benchmark which showed stair-step results. I
> >immediately
> >thought "Ah, this is due to CPU 0 and
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:17:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >Hello!
> >
> >So I ran a quick benchmark which showed stair-step results. I
> >immediately
> >thought "Ah, this is due to CPU 0 and 1, 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 6
On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>Hello!
>
>So I ran a quick benchmark which showed stair-step results. I
>immediately
>thought "Ah, this is due to CPU 0 and 1, 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 6 and 7
>being threads in a core." Then I thought "Wait,
On 10 July 2016 06:26:39 CEST, "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>Hello!
>
>So I ran a quick benchmark which showed stair-step results. I
>immediately
>thought "Ah, this is due to CPU 0 and 1, 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 6 and 7
>being threads in a core." Then I thought "Wait, this is an x86!"
>Then I
Hello!
So I ran a quick benchmark which showed stair-step results. I immediately
thought "Ah, this is due to CPU 0 and 1, 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 6 and 7
being threads in a core." Then I thought "Wait, this is an x86!"
Then I dumped out cpu*/topology/thread_siblings_list, getting the following:
Hello!
So I ran a quick benchmark which showed stair-step results. I immediately
thought "Ah, this is due to CPU 0 and 1, 2 and 3, 4 and 5, and 6 and 7
being threads in a core." Then I thought "Wait, this is an x86!"
Then I dumped out cpu*/topology/thread_siblings_list, getting the following:
30 matches
Mail list logo