Athlon MP vs Athlon XP
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Thomas Lovie tlovie at pokey.mine.nuThu Nov 8 12:36:08 PST 2001
- Previous message: Athlon MP vs Athlon XP
- Next message: Athlon MP vs Athlon XP
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 02:28:40PM -0500, Velocet wrote: > > > From what I understood from the useful articles that were > posted here, > > the cache protocol allows sharing data between the CPUs via the > > northbridge directly. > > Right. What it comes down to is this: Getting data from L2 is > always fastest if its in your own L2. But if it isn't, some > machines fetch from main memory faster than they can fetch a > dirty line from someone else's L2. AMD's scheme has > reasonably fast main memory fetches, plus even more efficient > fetches from a remote L2. > > I believe the Sun E10k is one of the few processors where > main memory is closer than someone else's L2. That makes > false sharing even worse than usual. > > However, from the beowulf standpoint, most of us are running > 2 independent mpi proceses on dual cpu boxes, right? I have a innocent question.... Does the kernel have processor affinity built in to it yet? The situation may arise that one of the mpi processes gets bumped from it's processor, by a system task, then it in turn bumps the other mpi task from the other processor, and in effect, it's info is cached in the other processor. I see the advantage that fetching from a remote L2 is better, but does anybody know the status of assigning a processor affinity mask to processes? Tom Lovie.
- Previous message: Athlon MP vs Athlon XP
- Next message: Athlon MP vs Athlon XP
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
