Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 13:27:11 05/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2003 at 11:11:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 28, 2003 at 02:49:32, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On May 28, 2003 at 00:23:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 27, 2003 at 22:56:54, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On May 27, 2003 at 16:39:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 27, 2003 at 13:23:24, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 27, 2003 at 11:05:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>So how do you explain your statement that no OSs you've "tested" issue halts? I >>>>>>>>mean, Linux issues halts. Did you not "test" Linux? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'll leave that for _you_ to figure out. You can find an explanation >>>>>>>in the "scheduler idle loop" code. >>>>>> >>>>>>Suck it up, Bob, and admit you were wrong. It's painfully obvious that you're >>>>>>not contradicting me, just handwaving and backpedaling enough to give yourself a >>>>>>heart attack. "I fiddle with the source code" and "I'll leave that for you to >>>>>>find out." Yeah, right, Bob. Do you think that if you continue with this asinine >>>>>>behavior, everybody will get confused and just assume you're right? >>>>>> >>>>>>From LinuxHQ, "The Linux Information Headquarters," >>>>>> >>>>>>"Regardless, you should be aware that even if you don't enable any power >>>>>>management on your laptop, on the x86 architecture Linux will always issue the >>>>>>"hlt" instruction to your processor whenever nothing needs to be done. This >>>>>>results in lowering the power consumption of your CPU. Note that the system >>>>>>doesn't power down when it receives the hlt instruction; it just stops executing >>>>>>instructions until there is an interrupt." >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.linuxhq.com/ldp/howto/mini/Battery-Powered/powermgm.html >>>>>> >>>>>>I can find a dozen other pages that say Linux issues halts at the drop of a hat. >>>>>>Just say the word and I'll make this even more embarrassing for you. (Although >>>>>>that's hard to imagine, isn't it?) >>>>> >>>>>Not embarassing for me at all. The point I referred to was that the >>>>>scheduler _first_ spins for a while, _then_ issues a halt. The "for a >>>> >>>>Right, well, you said it didn't issue halts. You can write a dozen posts about >>>>how exactly halts are issued but that doesn't change the fact that you were >>>>wrong. >>> >>>You stopped reading _too soon_. The post right below this one was pretty >>>clear in saying that the kernel I am running is _not_ issuing halts at all, >> >>Well, whoop-dee-frickin-doo. You never said that YOUR OS didn't issue halts. You >>said that no OS you knew of (except for possibly Windows Server 2003) issues >>halts. > >I'm running linux. It doesn't do halts. At least on the two SMP boxes >I tested it on. > >Windows NT didn't do halts. Several have complained about windows 2000 >having a similar restriction. It has been reported that windows .net >(2003) does do halts as well as use pause instructions in the spin locks >to make SMT work better. WHO CARES. You said OSs don't issue halts. Windows XP issues halts. You were wrong. You can list a million OSs that don't issue halts but that doesn't change the obvious fact that you were WRONG. (And condescending while being wrong, too.) Are you trying to beat your personal best for handwaving, or what? And anyway, I don't believe you about NT, Win2k, or Server 2003. First, you're contradicting what I've read on the web, and second, these OSs run single threaded programs at full speed on HT processors. I've seen it myself. How is that possible if one logical processor is spinning? It isn't. >>Anybody who's concerned themselves in the least about power consumption or CPU >>temperatures knows that pretty much every OS except for Win95 and Win98 issues >>halts. For example, the Athlon goes into a low power mode when it's halted ... >There are other things to do than "halt". the bios has features just to address >this without requiring a halt. And, as I mentioned, the comments in the So what? This is an argument about halts, not power consumption in general. Besides, what BIOS features? Post a link. >>Who cares what your first post said? You said the thread is about single thread >>RC5. So show me THAT post. No answer. That wasn't hard, was it? So now you don't have any evidence that HT slows down single-threaded apps. >Correct, but you have a total of 8. Doesn't matter whether you use 8 on >one thread or four each on two threads. There is a definite bandwidth limit >either way should be approximately the same. No, you have a total of 6. And I don't see why you have such a hard time understanding this. You understood it last week. "If Eugene is right ... that _could_ explain it (ie if some resources are split 50-50 between the two logical processors" I've posted incontrovertible proof that Eugene IS right. SO WHY ARE YOU STILL ARGUING. -Tom
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.