Originally posted by leeenux
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Building The Linux Kernel In 60 Seconds
Collapse
X
-
Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
-
Learning curve
I agree the learning curve for the openbenchmarking.org site is difficult. I gave up when I first tried to understand the site. However, I think I will pick it up on second review. I was able to find some of the results in question - Intel Core i7 3960X kernel comp. It did take me one search, then 4 clicks to find, which is very acceptable, since I still don't have a firm grasp on how to use the site. I haven't been able to get PTS working on my machine (gentoo amd64) but I'ma try again on that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rrohbeck
Comment
-
Originally posted by Qaridariummany windows7 tests but the windows7 scheduler can't handle the bulldozer correctly
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanaG View PostI wonder: if AMD were to present the cores to the OS as SMT (hyperthreading), rather than as full cores... would that help the performance?
AMDs variant actually has real computational assets and so can not only do actual processing but will appreciate shared information and ability to turbo-core.
the more typical SMT (Intel) thing however is having multiple threads per core processing one at a time and waiting for a thread to stall out to compute on the other. Obviously you can only run one thread at a time in this configuration and thus it helps for the threads to be spread across the actual computational assets.
Of course the AMD design can also in some situations where lots of cache is needed by a particular thread be improved by singly assigned a tread to a module
So no... Intel's "Hyperthreading" software stuff would likely not help AMD that much..
Comment
-
So just for fun, I ran this kernel compile test on an Opteron 6128. For the record, thats an 8 core 2.0 GHz part, TDP 115 watt. Its a magny-cours, NOT a bulldozer.
Came to 1m49.265s. I did 3 runs, they all came to within about 0.150 seconds.
Now, obviously that isn't directly comparable, so lets try to adjust.
109.265 seconds
Apparently, a reasonable scaling factor for magny-cours to bulldozer is 1.3x
So w/bulldozer 8 core @ 2.0 GHz, we would be looking at 84.05 seconds.
Now we scale number of cores,
84.05x8/6=112.1s with a 6 core 2.0 GHz bulldozer.
Now bump up the clock rate....
3.0 GHz: 74.73s
3.3 GHz: 67.94s
3.9 GHz: 57.48s
4.0 GHz: 56.05s
Yeah yeah, I know... there's more than just CPU time involved.
For reference, the system has 2 Seagate Constellation ST32000444SS running in RAID 0 (hardware), 32 GB ECC/REG in 4-channel, I forget how fast.
Anyway, to make a little more sense.... bulldozer FX-8150 is an 8-core 3.6 GHz....
109.25/1.3=84.03s
And at 3.6 GHz...
84.03*2/3.6=46.69s <--- hmm, when you're doing something like this, it tends to scale fairly linearly, doesn't it? Right... the disk part doesn't scale at all. Well I'm running magnetic disks, which are obviously at a tremendous disadvantage here. I think the bulldozer will do fine.
Comment
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostAnyway, to make a little more sense.... bulldozer FX-8150 is an 8-core 3.6 GHz....
109.25/1.3=84.03s
And at 3.6 GHz...
84.03*2/3.6=46.69s <--- hmm, when you're doing something like this, it tends to scale fairly linearly, doesn't it? Right... the disk part doesn't scale at all. Well I'm running magnetic disks, which are obviously at a tremendous disadvantage here. I think the bulldozer will do fine.
Comment
Comment