| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurementsBFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurementsPosted Sep 7, 2009 8:14 UTC (Mon) by ketilmalde (guest, #18719)In reply to: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements by drag Parent article: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements
> There is not one single person I know that owns a dual-socket desktop.
I have an old dual Pentium-II 450MHz. It's not actually in use anymore, though, so it probably doesn't count.
> That being said I don't think it would make a big deal.
I think it might - things like processor affinity is likely to matter a great deal more on multiple socket systems than on just multicore systems. Multicore chips typically come with a large, shared cache, so moving threads across cores isn't as costly as moving them across sockets.
From what I read, BFS doesn't even try to be NUMA-aware, it doesn't seem unreasonable that it would perform quite differently on single and multi-socket systems.
-k
(Log in to post comments)
BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements Posted Jun 8, 2010 13:22 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Way back when I confiscated a dual Pentium Pro (200MHz) to use as a desktop machine for use in a class I was teaching... the machine was old already (I actually canibalized two of them to get a working one).
|
|
||||||||||||