linux-kernel - Re: Hyperthreading performance oddities

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

Message-ID: <47D192BF.5090501@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:08:47 -0500
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Buehler <abuehler.kernel@...il.com>
CC:	Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...e.fr>,
	belcampo <belcampo@...net.nl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Hyperthreading performance oddities

Andrew Buehler wrote:
> (I'm aware that this could be considered thread necromancy, but I
> haven't yet seen any indication that that is considered a bad thing in
> these here parts; if it is, then I apologize, and upon being informed of
> the fact will undertake to not commit such again.)
> 
> On 2/22/2008 5:06 AM, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> 
>> Hello Henk,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:36:01AM +0100, belcampo wrote:
>>
>>> Kernel 2.6.22.9 smp hyperthreading
>>> BENCHMARKs: VC: 334.042s VO:   0.053s A:   0.000s Sys:   4.049s =  
>>> 338.143s
>>> Kernel 2.6.22.9 nonsmp/hyperthreading
>>> BENCHMARKs: VC: 262.008s VO:   0.031s A:   0.000s Sys:   3.528s =  
>>> 265.567s
>>> with 2.6.17 kernel smp/hyperthreading pentium-pro as CPU
>>> BENCHMARKs: VC: 245.175s VO:   0.050s A:   0.000s Sys:   2.479s =  
>>> 247.704s
>>> with 2.6.17 kernel smp/hyperthreading pentium4 optimized kernel
>>> BENCHMARKs: VC: 227.992s VO:   0.051s A:   0.000s Sys:   2.551s =  
>>> 230.594s
>>
>> I'm not familiar with mplayer benchmarks, what do they actually measure?
> 
> I don't know if this discussion got continued privately, but on the
> assumption that it didn't, I think I can give at least a basic answer to
> this.
> 
> The VC: value is the amount of time spent in the video-codec code during
> that run, the VO: value is the amount of time spent in the video-output
> code, the A: is the amount of time spent in (ISTR) audio processing -
> though whether codec or audio-output or audio filters etc. is unclear, I
> remember there being separate values for those rather than their being
> lumped under one header- and the Sys: value is I believe the amount of
> time spent in system calls.
> 
> (For the record: I'm a long-time lurker and occasional, largely
> non-code, contributor on the MPlayer development lists, but I've never
> had occasion to look at the code behind or the logic involved in the
> -benchmark output.)
> 

Turning on hyperthreading effectively halves the amount of cache 
available for each logical CPU when both are doing work, which can do 
more harm than good.  Number-crunching applications that utilize the 
cache effectively generally don't benefit from hyperthreading, 
particularly floating-point-intensive ones.

On the other hand, hyperthreading is excellent for streaming integer 
work, like compiling.  Whether or not you should use it depends entirely 
on your workload.

-- Chris
--
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/