Intel Hyper-Threading & FreeBSD

Graaf_van_Vlaanderen · #1 March 2nd, 2009, 17:52

I read some articles how this can affect security. How does it affect performance in FreeBSD? What are your experiences/recommendations? Which (kind of) applications do benefit from hyper-threading?

mk · #2 March 2nd, 2009, 18:38

you can check this as a start.

Graaf_van_Vlaanderen · #3 March 2nd, 2009, 23:58

Thanks for the link.
I did some tests on my own on a DL360 G4 single 3.4GHz CPU
(1MB L2 cache) and have the impression that it's better to switch off hyper-threading for applications like Octave, which invokes Gnuplot while executing the script.
Also 'unixbench' gives better results, with hyper-threading disabled.

hydra · #4 March 3rd, 2009, 00:22

My former computer with P4 provided much worse results in Quake3 when HT was enabled. The idea behind HT may be nice, but the reality seems to be somewhere else...

#5 March 3rd, 2009, 01:57

I have a CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.60GHz (2605.92-MHz 686-class CPU) and with HT enable it is faster and when I compailing for example I can working with GIMP, OO without problem.

mk · #6 March 3rd, 2009, 08:31

AFAIK HT in newest intel cpu is redesign from scratch i.e P4 HT can't be compare with i7 (that's how my small research end but i didn't manage to get some specs of what exactly is HT from intel site, yes there is wikipedia but ...

hydra · #7 March 3rd, 2009, 19:47

@lumiwa
How did you notice it's faster ? In what sort of applications ?

@mk
HT splits a single core into 2 virtual CPUs, so the OS scheduler believes there are two processors. If two operations use disjoint function blocks, they can be executed in parallel. There are some security considerations since they both use the same cache. This is made obsolete by Core 2 Duo and others, where you don't pretend to have a multitude of function blocks, but you really have more cores.

Graaf_van_Vlaanderen · #8 March 4th, 2009, 13:49

Here are some results from unixbench on a DL360 G4 with a Xeon 3.4GHz (1MB L2):

I: Hyper-threading enabled:

INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 9784314.6 838.4
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1874.8 340.9
Execl Throughput 43.0 1322.2 307.5
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 31338.0 79.1
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 32655.0 197.3
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 32812.0 56.6
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 621656.8 499.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 93648.1 234.1
Process Creation 126.0 4380.0 347.6
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 326.3 543.8
System Call Overhead 15000.0 537310.4 358.2
=========
FINAL SCORE 272.5

II: Hyper-threading disabled:

TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX

Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 9808714.4 840.5
Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1876.3 341.1
Execl Throughput 43.0 1366.9 317.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 26512.0 66.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 27417.0 165.7
File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 32259.0 55.6
Pipe Throughput 12440.0 621646.8 499.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 128596.4 321.5
Process Creation 126.0 5117.5 406.2
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 395.0 658.3
System Call Overhead 15000.0 540504.8 360.3
=========
FINAL SCORE 281.2

Carpetsmoker · #9 March 4th, 2009, 14:47

HyperThreading should preform better when you have multiple applications running, in a typical Windows environment you often have quite a bit of stuff running in the background, and HT should really help in those cases -- At least, this is what our Intel rep told me during the i7 briefing.

Mel_Flynn · #10 March 4th, 2009, 19:21

Hmm, interesting results. Concurrent shellscripts and pipe-based context switching is expected to be slower, but I didn't expect the file copies to be significantly faster. Did you reboot and give machine cooldown time before starting the second test?

**phoenix** · #11 March 4th, 2009, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker

HyperThreading should preform better when you have multiple applications running, in a typical Windows environment you often have quite a bit of stuff running in the background, and HT should really help in those cases -- At least, this is what our Intel rep told me during the i7 briefing.

HyperThreading on P4/Core/Core2 CPUs is very different from HyperThreading on i7 CPUs.

The usefulness of HTT on P4/Core/Core2 is very hit-and-miss. Some workloads benefit, some don't. The main reason is that the way the CPU units are split is not uniform, and if you don't have an HTT-aware CPU scheduler (ie one that things both logical CPUs are identical) you can severely hamper performance.

Supposedly, HTT on i7 is smarter, and the CPU can properly balance instructions across the logical CPUs. In theory, HTT on i7 should be useable for all workloads.

Graaf_van_Vlaanderen · #12 March 4th, 2009, 22:04

I did one of the tests yesterday and the other (disabled) today. In both cases the machine was running already for about an
hour and no other programs were running during this test.
Some extra info. Both hard disks (one of them is new!) are in RAID1 and the used memory is DDR (PC2700).

I remember about 5 years ago when moving from Solaris 8 to Red Hat for Cadence design tools, on all the simulation servers hyper-threading was enabled. At that time we didn't have a MP simulator available. So if you were the only one running a long simulation of twelve hours on a dual (P4 like) Xeon machine you had the impression that only 25 percent of this machine was used.

#13 March 5th, 2009, 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by hydra

@lumiwa
How did you notice it's faster ? In what sort of applications ?

Example: postmaster -a. There are 5 app for update and it start. Than I start KDE, Gimp and working with pictures and with Amarok listen music and use Opera for surfing. Everything run smooth but if I do same with HT disabled than I have problem with music, waiting for Gimp, surfing...and OO running too.

I didn't ran any benchamrk just my personal opinion (feeling

)
I did try with HT disabled about one week just for test and than went back to HT enabled.

estrabd · #14 January 30th, 2012, 04:10

I know this is an old thread, but I am doing research on HT and FreeBSD - because I am looking at setting up a Xeon-based system (Dell PowerEdge 1750) with HT support. HT really just interleaves memory fetches with instructions between two logical threads of execution - as said above, benefits are greatly dependent on the workload.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel DG43NB & 82567V Ethernet Controller	pasha	System Hardware	5	May 22nd, 2009 07:26
FreeBSD threading model	bsd_newbie	Porting New Software	2	February 8th, 2009 18:16
libc.so.6 && FMOD && FreeBSD	Sa3r	Userland Programming & Scripting	6	February 5th, 2009 11:54
FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE-p4 && xorg-7.3_2 huge memory leak	TheFeaR	X.Org	17	November 27th, 2008 10:54
Python Threading question	lme@	Userland Programming & Scripting	8	November 26th, 2008 17:23