From: Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org>
To: Louis Garcia <louisg00@bellsouth.net>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: P4 hyperthreading
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:03:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020603193227.C1FD07BD@merlin.webofficenow.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206011842370.976-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com> <1022981972.2456.10.camel@tiger>
On Saturday 01 June 2002 09:39 pm, Louis Garcia wrote:
> I was just thinking about that. Do you now if this has a real speed
> improvement?
As with most speed improvements, it depends on your workload.
Hyper-threading is a way of keeping more execution cores busy more of the
time, hopefully without putting as much pressure on the cache and memory bus
(which are the REAL performance bottlenecks with a clock multipler of 18X or
so) quite as badly as VLIW/EPIC seem to.
If you're running something like distributed.net that has a small enough
cache footprint, hyperthreading might be really nice. But seti@home will
probably suck: it flushes cache contents 24/7.
More to the point, one of the recurring arguments in favor of dual processors
is that having a second proc to handle interrupt-triggered asynchronous work
(disk activity,mouse move, keypress, network packet) can, in theory,
significantly lower your latency.
And in the future, it allows them to pull the Xeon trick of blowing a HUGE
transistor budget on L1 or on-die L2 cache (next time they rev their
manufacturing process), and potentially get some actual real-world benefit
out of it (as something other than compensating for their brain-dead SMP
memory bus design).
The main down side (other than two threads fighting for the same cache space,
although interrupts and context switches are going to do that ANYWAY, so...)
is probably less locality of reference about memory access, so you wind up
doing more bank switching and such, adding latency to main memory accesses.
There's a great old series about how memory works on Ars Technica (from SRAM
and DRAM to DDR vs Rambus...):
Part 1: http://www.arstechnica.com/paedia/r/ram_guide/ram_guide.part1-1.html
Part 2: http://www.arstechnica.com/paedia/r/ram_guide/ram_guide.part2-1.html
Part 3: http://www.arstechnica.com/paedia/r/ram_guide/ram_guide.part3-1.html
(And once again, a new technology emerges for which DDR is just a little bit
better than Rambus... :)
</rampant opinion>
Rob
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-03 19:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-02 0:40 Louis Garcia
2002-06-02 0:50 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-02 1:14 ` Louis Garcia
2002-06-02 1:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-02 1:44 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-06-02 1:39 ` Louis Garcia
2002-06-02 3:04 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-06-02 5:12 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-06-02 5:23 ` Louis Garcia
2002-06-02 8:32 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2002-06-03 6:02 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-06-03 13:03 ` Rob Landley [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020603193227.C1FD07BD@merlin.webofficenow.com \
--to=landley@trommello.org \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=louisg00@bellsouth.net \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®