[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Hyper-Threading Vulnerability
    On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:49:25 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd <> 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.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-13 21:55    [W:0.044 / U:38.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site