Re: Hyper-threading (was Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andy Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Nate Bargmann wrote:
[snip]
> This is a bit simplistic. Hyper-Threading (or more correctly,
> simultaneous multithreading (SMT)) is almost always a win because
> at any given time a CPU is often waiting for other stages of the
> pipeline to complete before it can progress with what it is
> being tasked to do. By having multiple threads of execution it
> can be getting on with something useful more of the time.
>
> Of course, unless the software being run is paralellizable then
> very little gains will be realised, but the execution part should
> never actually get slower. There have been bugs in the Pentium
> 4 architecture that have caused various software to run slower
> under hyperthreading, and lack of paralellism can lead to no
> discernible benefit, but the concept of SMT when done right has
> no downside from the point of view of a CPU executing
> instructions.
Thanks for correcting me regarding the mechanics of it.
I stand by my assertion, though, that Intel's HT slows down apps
unless they are very threaded.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEjAX3S9HxQb37XmcRAktzAJ9AknkW6OKzsJ1mdBCyLuH/9x5LnwCgjOVo
OL3kBvuAFIv62MlqunnrSzU=
=xBxl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: