On 6/5/15 7:29 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Thursday, 4 June 2015 at 22:28:52 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
anyone give a reason why we need to. deadalnix talked about load
balancing that way, but you gave good reasons as to why that didn't
make sense,
What good reasons?
By the time you get response from your shared memcache or database the
x86 cache level 1 and possibly 2 is cold. And cache level 3 is shared,
so there is no cache penalty for switching cores. Add to this that
two-and-two cores share primary caches so if you don't pair tasks that
address the same memory you loose up to 10-20% performance in addition
to unused capacity and increased latency.
I think I'll go with Liran's experience over your hypothetical
anecdotes. You seem to have a lot of academic knowledge, but I'd rather
see what actually happens. If you have that data, please share.
-Steve
