Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 12:29:22 12/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 2002 at 15:26:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 17, 2002 at 14:38:22, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On December 17, 2002 at 12:50:48, Matt Taylor wrote: >> >>>Actually it doesn't work like that. The CPU has an existing bandwidth of 3 >>>micro-ops/cycle. >> >>I was under the impression the P4 was much more limited than that >>(don't remember the details though). >> >>>Now, I am no parallel researcher, but even my parallel code doesn't suffer >>>overheads so large that it can't gain from HT. >> >>Depends on what the problem is. >> >>>You never said what "2 processes" was. Is it one physical CPU with HT or two >>>physical CPUs without HT? >> >>2 physical CPUS with hyperthreading enabled running 2 processes >> >>(The case that breaks the scheduler) >> >>-- >>GCP > > >What makes that case so interesting? It is going to be fixed soon. It is >already fixed in >windows.net and apparently in XP server... Windows .NET Server = Windows XP Server. Technically there is no version of Windows named "Windows XP Server." They decided to change names for whatever reason. Who can fathom the market hype machine? -Matt
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.