← Back to context

Comment by saurik

18 hours ago

Did you test at least +1 if not *1.5 or something? I would expect you to occasionally get blocked on disk I/O and would want some spare work sitting hot to switch in.

7 comments

saurik

Reply
rwmj  18 hours ago

Let me test that now. Note I only have 1 Intel machine so any results are very specific to this laptop.

  -j           time (mean ± σ)
  12 (#P+#E)   130.889 s ±  4.072 s
  13 (..+1)    135.049 s ±  2.270 s
   4 (#P)      179.845 s ±  1.783 s
   8 (#E)      141.669 s ±  3.441 s

Machine: 13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1365U; 2 x P-cores (4 threads), 8 x E-cores

  • wtallis  17 hours ago

    Your processor has two P cores, and ten cores total, not twelve. The HyperThreading (SMT) does not make the two P cores into four cores. Your experiment with 4 threads will most likely result in using both P cores and two E cores, as no sane OS would double up threads on the P cores before the E cores were full with one thread each.

    • rwmj  17 hours ago

      The hyperthreading should cover up memory latency, since the workload (compiling qemu) might not fit into L3 cache. Although I take your point that it doesn't magically create two core-equivalents.

      2 replies →