linux-kernel - CPU numbering & hyperthreading

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:05:52 -0400
From:	Andrew Athan <aathan_linux_kernel_1542@...akmail.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: CPU numbering & hyperthreading

On an Intel Xeon dual CPU machine running 2.6.16 and up...

I have two highly CPU/memory/network intensive processes with 3-5 
threads each.  I am using sched_setaffinity calls to make sure these two 
processes never compete for the same physical CPU.  Am I right to assume 
that CPU #0 and #1 vs CPU #2 and #3 are separate physical CPUs on a 
2-CPU w/ hyperthreading box?

I've spent some time looking, but I did not find documentation on 
exactly how CPUs are numbered in a hyperthreaded box.

For a process with N threads where N is generally <=5, where each thread 
shares access to the same large (300Mb) data structure across several 
threads, and which pumps the data from memory to a TCP socket, making 
many futex, select, write(), send() network calls (but no disk I/O), I 
assume it is best to keep said process on the same physical CPU but 
allow use both logical processors on that CPU (vs. keeping it to a 
single logical CPU)?

Thanks,
A.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/