I have a question regarding performance issue I am seeing on multicore Windows
systems. I am creating many threads to do parallel tasks, and on multicore
Windows systems the performance is abysmal. If I use task manager to set the
processor affinity to a single CPU, the program runs as I would
== Quote from Dan (dsstruth...@yahoo.com)'s article
> I have a question regarding performance issue I am seeing on multicore Windows
systems. I am creating many threads to do parallel tasks, and on multicore
Windows systems the performance is abysmal. If I use task manager to set the
processor af
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article
> == Quote from Dan (dsstruth...@yahoo.com)'s article
> > I have a question regarding performance issue I am seeing on multicore
> > Windows
> systems. I am creating many threads to do parallel tasks, and on multicore
> Windows systems the perfo
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:18:28 -0500, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Dan (dsstruth...@yahoo.com)'s article
I have a question regarding performance issue I am seeing on multicore
Windows
systems. I am creating many threads to do parallel tasks, and on
multicore
Windows systems the performance i
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> Maybe I'm wrong, is there a good test case to prove it is worse on
> multiple cores?
> -Steve
This is a synthetic, extreme corner case benchmark, but I think it hammers home
the point that such problems are at least plausible. T
On 2009-12-15 10:28:37 -0500, dsimcha said:
void doAppending() {
uint[] arr;
foreach(i; 0..1_000_000) {
arr ~= i;
}
}
For comparison's sake, you might want to compare that with malloc/realloc:
void doAppending() {
uint* arr = null;
foreach(i; 0..1_000_000)
dsimcha Wrote:
> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> > Maybe I'm wrong, is there a good test case to prove it is worse on
> > multiple cores?
> > -Steve
>
> This is a synthetic, extreme corner case benchmark, but I think it hammers
> home
> the point that such pr
== Quote from Dan (dsstruth...@yahoo.com)'s article
> My code does do considerable array appending, and I see exactly the same issue
as dsimcha points out above. I would expect it is GC related, but why for
multiple cores only, I cannot fathom.
> Thanks for the repro, dsimcha! My code snippet wou
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:23:01 -0500, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Dan (dsstruth...@yahoo.com)'s article
My code does do considerable array appending, and I see exactly the
same issue
as dsimcha points out above. I would expect it is GC related, but why
for
multiple cores only, I cannot fat
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> Yes, but why does multiple cores make the problem worse? If it's the
> lock, then I'd expect just locking in multiple threads without any
> appending does worse on multiple cores than on a single core.
It does.
import std.stdio
dsimcha wrote:
This is a synthetic, extreme corner case benchmark, but I think it
hammers home
the point that such problems are at least plausible. Tested on a Core 2
Quad with
-O -inline -release:
Timing with affinity for all 4 CPUs: 28390 milliseconds
Timing with affinity for only 1 CP
== Quote from Simen kjaeraas (simen.kja...@gmail.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > This is a synthetic, extreme corner case benchmark, but I think it
> > hammers home
> > the point that such problems are at least plausible. Tested on a Core 2
> > Quad with
> > -O -inline -release:
> > Timing wi
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Simen kjaeraas (simen.kja...@gmail.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
Timing with affinity for all 4 CPUs: 28390 milliseconds
Timing with affinity for only 1 CPU: 533 milliseconds
Tested this on a Core 2 Duo, same options. OS is Windows 7, 64bit. It
scales roughly i
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:01:54 +0100, Sergey Gromov
wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Simen kjaeraas (simen.kja...@gmail.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
Timing with affinity for all 4 CPUs: 28390 milliseconds
Timing with affinity for only 1 CPU: 533 milliseconds
Tested this on a Core 2
On 2009-12-15 19:49:43 -0500, dsimcha said:
== Quote from Simen kjaeraas (simen.kja...@gmail.com)'s article
Tested this on a Core 2 Duo, same options. OS is Windows 7, 64bit. It
scales roughly inverse linearly with number of threads:
163ms for 1,
364ms for 2,
886ms for 4
This is quite differen
On 12/16/09 03:44, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-12-15 19:49:43 -0500, dsimcha said:
== Quote from Simen kjaeraas (simen.kja...@gmail.com)'s article
Tested this on a Core 2 Duo, same options. OS is Windows 7, 64bit. It
scales roughly inverse linearly with number of threads:
163ms for 1,
364ms
On 2009-12-16 07:08:30 -0500, Jacob Carlborg said:
On 12/16/09 03:44, Michel Fortin wrote:
Core 2 Duo / Mac OS X 10.6 / 4 threads:
Crystal:~ mifo$ ./test
Set affinity, then press enter.
Bus error
Runs for about 18 seconds, then crashes. At first glance, it looks as if
the Thread class is br
Michel Fortin Wrote:
> On 2009-12-16 07:08:30 -0500, Jacob Carlborg said:
>
> > On 12/16/09 03:44, Michel Fortin wrote:
> >> Core 2 Duo / Mac OS X 10.6 / 4 threads:
> >>
> >> Crystal:~ mifo$ ./test
> >> Set affinity, then press enter.
> >>
> >> Bus error
> >>
> >> Runs for about 18 seconds, t
18 matches
Mail list logo
