Hyperthreading

[Primeinator]

Hello,

I have a question regarding hyperthreading on quad-core processors. What is the most efficient way to utilize this new processor for LL testing? How many workers should I run to get the most throughput without overly 'damaging' my computer's performance on other tasks? Thanks!

Kyle

[lycorn]

The most efficient way is not using hyperthreading at all.
As to the per core assignments, the large mem bandwidth of the i7 platforms shall allow you to run 1 LL per core without a significant performance degradation. Although I never tried it, some people has reported that an even better setting is 2 LL worker windows (2 tests), each using 2 threads.

[Primeinator]

But using 2 threads each would be using hyperthreading, would it not? How would I go about setting up these different scenarios you've listed?

[CADavis]

I would suggest run 4 workers, each with only 1 thread, and tell let Prime95 to "run on any CPU" for each test. That way each one will always land on a "real" core.

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by CADavis

I would suggest run 4 workers, each with only 1 thread, and tell let Prime95 to "run on any CPU" for each test. That way each one will always land on a "real" core.

Thanks!

[sdbardwick]

Originally Posted by CADavis

I would suggest run 4 workers, each with only 1 thread, and tell let Prime95 to "run on any CPU" for each test. That way each one will always land on a "real" core.

That will not guarantee that each thread uses a physical core. It depends on how the OS enumerates each core; I've witnessed things like core-0=physical, core-1=virtual, core-2=physical, core-3=virtual, core-4= physical, core-5= virtual, core-6=physical, core-7= virtual as well as stranger permutations. I have not seen core-0 be anything but physical.

EDIT: Above is under Windows only; can't speak to *nix. I suspect that odd enumerations relate to not having the proper CPU "driver" in some Windows situations.

[CADavis]

Well what I meant is that it will allow Windows to move the thread around to any core, and since the OS sees 8 "cores" but only 4 thread, it works in my experience.

[lycorn]

Originally Posted by Primeinator

But using 2 threads each would be using hyperthreading, would it not? How would I go about setting up these different scenarios you've listed?

No. You would be running 2 tests, each using 2 cores. That is different from hyperthreading, where each core is used by 2 threads.
To set this up, go to Test->Worker windows, then choose Number of worker windows to run:2, and CPUs to use (multithreading): 2. You may leave the affinity setting at "Run on any CPU".

Try this versus other suggested settings, and draw your own conclusions. Keep us posted.

[retina]

Originally Posted by sdbardwick

That will not guarantee that each thread uses a physical core. It depends on how the OS enumerates each core; I've witnessed things like core-0=physical, core-1=virtual, core-2=physical, core-3=virtual, core-4= physical, core-5= virtual, core-6=physical, core-7= virtual as well as stranger permutations. I have not seen core-0 be anything but physical.

I am not convinced by the virtual/physical description you give here. Hyperthreading means that one CPU core can run two program threads "simultaneously"¹. But those two threads each run on a virtual CPU core (i.e. two virtual cores running one thread each). And two virtual cores exist on one physical CPU.

So the numbering would be closer to this:²

OS CPU-0 : physical core 0 - virtual core 0
OS CPU-1 : physical core 0 - virtual core 1
OS CPU-2 : physical core 1 - virtual core 0
OS CPU-3 : physical core 1 - virtual core 1
OS CPU-4 : physical core 2 - virtual core 0
OS CPU-5 : physical core 2 - virtual core 1
OS CPU-6 : physical core 3 - virtual core 0
OS CPU-7 : physical core 3 - virtual core 1

I don't think you can distinguish between the two virtual cores, they are pretty much identical. So to call one a physical core and the other a virtual core is misleading. They are both virtual cores running on a single physical core.

So for the above numbering, running four threads on 1, 3, 5 & 7 is just the same as 0, 2, 4 & 6, or any other combination that only uses one of each virtual core pair.

¹ Not really simultaneously of course. Each of the two virtual cores executes the instructions alternately with the other. They compete with each other to use the same resources of one physical core.

² Of course the OS/physical/virtual numbering depends upon how the actual OS numbers things, I just followed the description in the quote above.

[CADavis]

Originally Posted by retina

I don't think you can distinguish between the two virtual cores, they are pretty much identical. So to call one a physical core and the other a virtual core is misleading. They are both virtual cores running on a single physical core.

So for the above numbering, running four threads on 1, 3, 5 & 7 is just the same as 0, 2, 4 & 6, or any other combination that only uses one of each virtual core pair.

yeah this is what I was getting at.

[jasong]

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure you get a pretty big increase in speed(especially in Linux with only the DCing stuff running) if each instance gets it's own physical core. And when I say gets it's own physical core, I'm talking about using a command that forces it to only use one particular core.