[concurrency-interest] Some interesting (confusing?) benchmark results

Nathan Reynolds nathan.reynolds at oracle.com
Tue Feb 12 16:47:39 EST 2013


 > best performance when only loading 60-70% of the cores

What do you mean by performance?  Do you mean you achieve the highest 
throughput?  Do you mean you achieve the lowest response times?  Do you 
mean something else?

The early implementations of hyper-threading on Intel processors 
sometimes ran into trouble depending upon the workload.  Enabling 
hyper-threading actual hurt performance and throughput.  A lot of people 
quickly learned to disable hyper-threading.  They are so entrenched in 
that decision that it is hard to help them see that hyper-threading is 
actually beneficial now.

The Linux thread scheduler is smart enough to put 1 thread on each 
physical core first and then double up on physical cores.  So, I am not 
surprised that loading 60-70% cores yields best performance on the above 
mentioned processors.  This creates a few more threads than physical 
cores which in a way disables hyper-threading.

Later implementations of hyper-threading improved considerably.  I am 
not aware of any workloads which perform worse with hyper-threading 
enabled.  With a modern processor (i.e. Westmere or newer), it would be 
interesting if you ran your workload with hyper-threading enabled and 
disabled.  Then find the optimal thread count for each configuration.  
If hyper-threading disabled performs better, then that definitely would 
be an interesting workload and result.

Nathan Reynolds 
<http://psr.us.oracle.com/wiki/index.php/User:Nathan_Reynolds> | 
Architect | 602.333.9091
Oracle PSR Engineering <http://psr.us.oracle.com/> | Server Technology
On 2/12/2013 2:18 PM, ?iktor ?lang wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Kirk Pepperdine <kirk at kodewerk.com 
> <mailto:kirk at kodewerk.com>> wrote:
>
>     >
>     > Do you agree that thread pool sizing depends on type of work?
>     (IO bound vs CPU bound, bursty vs steady etc etc)
>     Yes
>     > Do you agree that a JVM Thread is not a unit of parallelism?
>     Yes
>     > Do you agree that having more JVM Threads than hardware threads
>     is bad for CPU-bound workloads?
>     No, even with CPU bound workloads I have found that the
>     hardware/OS is much better at managing many workloads across many
>     threads than I am. So a few more threads is ok, many more threads
>     is bad fast.
>
>
> That's an interesting observation. Have any more data on that? (really 
> interested)
> As I said earlier, for CPU-bound workloads we've seen the best 
> performance when only loading 60-70% of the cores (other threads exist 
> on the machine of course).
>
> Cheers,
>
> ?
>
>
>     Regards,
>     Kirk
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Viktor Klang*
> /Director of Engineering/
> /
> /
> Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/>- The software stack for 
> applications that scale
> Twitter: @viktorklang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20130212/aeb0e062/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list