Messages in this thread | | | From | Grant Coady <> | Subject | Re: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability | Date | Sat, 14 May 2005 05:36:50 +1000 |
| |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:49:25 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd <lkml@coyotegulch.com> wrote:
>Alan Cox wrote: >> HT for most users is pretty irrelevant, its a neat idea but the >> benchmarks don't suggest its too big a hit > >On real-world applications, I haven't seen HT boost performance by more >than 15% on a Pentium 4 -- and the usual gain is around 5%, if anything >at all. HT is a nice idea, but I don't enable it on my systems.
P4-HT is great for winxp, a runaway process only gets half the CPU resources, keeps the system responsive. I like HT for that reason, perhaps that's what it was designed for? Hardware fix for msft 'OS' :o)
Recently on single AMD CPU box, 2.6.latest-mm, diff got stuck, no disk activity, 100% CPU, started another terminal, recompiled kernel with 8K stacks and rebooted, the whole time the unkillable 'diff' was using just over 1/2 of resources. top showed all 1GB RAM in use, no swap activity, nothing odd in /proc/whatever -- only happened once.
I suspected 4k stacks as only change before 'crash' was turning on samba server day before, but I didn't trace 'problem' as it wasn't really a crash. Impressive -- seeing 2.6 handling a stupid process, business as usual for everything else. Haven't had a problem since changing to 8K stacks. nfs, samba and ssh terminals on reiserfs 3.6 on via sata. May have had nvidia driver installed at the time, I now load that only when X running (rare), mostly headless use.
--Grant.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |