Subject: Re: Dell PowerEdge 8450
To: David Burren <email@example.com>
From: Mark Simmons <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/01/2004 13:20:27
Well, reading the paper on the new FreeBSD 5.0 ULE (sp?) scheduler, it seems as
though they're treating HT CPUs as a form of NUMA for CPU affinity purposes.
Whether that has any measurable benefit, or causes measurable problems, I don't
The paper was presented at BSDCon '03 iirc, you can find it at Usenix.org.
David Burren wrote:
> "Toru Nishimura" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>His lab tested HT servers and concluded _the_ HT SMP Linux kernel
>>implementation scales actually worse, at least no better, than
>>plain SMP kernel. It sounded HT is rather waste of transistor
> My understanding is that HT can be beneficial if you have a model
> where you can avoid having threads from separate processes running
> on the same physical CPU.
> Given that this requires the use of multithreaded applications in
> your performance critical path to get any advantage, and a scheduler
> that distinguishes between virtual and physical CPUs, then without
> both of those yes I'd agree it's a waste of time.
> But I'm sure there's an application for it _somewhere_... ;)
> Does anyone know of a scheduler (in any OS) that is HT-aware in
> this way?
> David Burren