| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071121204044.GB1299@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:40:44 -0500 From: lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) To: Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: spreading the heat? On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 09:37:36PM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > I was wondering: if a quad core runs 2 processes at max cpu usage, won't > that wear out the chip? As the heat is not egally spread out, some parts > will expand more then other parts, may give damage won't it? > So what I was suggesting maybe if that is the situation for longer time, > maybe such processes should be scheduled to other cores as well? If intel didn't design it to survive having a non SMP OS booted on it using just one core 100% (say you boot DOS which doesn't have any idle/sleep stuff in it, just actively spiing looking for input), then the design is wrong. I highly doubt that so I wouldn't worry about it. After all that metal bit on top of the cpu is called a heat spreader for a reason. I would be surprised if you can get more than 10 degrees C difference between different parts of the core, although that's just a guess. -- Len Sorensen - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists