Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 20:54:43 10/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2003 at 22:27:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >You're right, the #s do work out pretty well, but that must mean both threads >are bouncing around different logical processors frequently, otherwise there'd >be a disparity in the node counts of each thread. This doesn't seem likely to me >but I guess it's not impossible. I wonder if there's a way to keep track of >which thread is running on which processor. The threads really do hop around the processors. You wrote previously that a process should stay on the same processor until 'something odd happens' - in other words, until something pre-empts the process. It's very frequent that a part of the kernel, or a service, or something else with default high+ priority gets scheduled for some miniscule fraction of time, so it will bump your process to another processor. If you raise your program's priority to realtime and run two threads, you should be able to get more stable results in this regard.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.