2CPU

Main Menu

· Content
· News
· Articles
· Mailinglists
· Knowledgebase
· Trouble Tickets
· Files
· Glossary
· Links
· Compatibility Lists
· Forums

News

· News Overview
· News Channels
· News Archive
· Search News
· Submit News

What's New

Login to see an overview of all news stories since your last visit.

News Channels

· General Site News
· Folding@Home
· SETI@Home
· General Web News
· General Distributed Computing
· RC5
· General Articles
· Hardware
· Motherboards
· Video Cards
· Storage
· Cases
· Optical Drives
· Barebones, Servers and SFFs
· Processors
· General Hardware
· Operating Systems
· Applications
· How-To
· General Technical
· Frequently Asked Questions
· Editorials
· Press Releases

News Tags

The news tag list is currently empty

Online Users

There are currently 14 user(s) online

Managed with Contentteller(R) Community Edition, (C) 2002 - 2009 Esselbach Internet Solutions. The Community Edition of Contentteller(R) is free software released under the GNU/GPL v3

Latest News

· Best CPU: 10 top processors from AMD and Intel
· Happy New Year
· AMD aim Opteron at the Cloud
· Cisco doing the silicon shuffle
· Juniper goes after the SDN market
· China gives birth to Godson, rival Intel
· HP intros the Proliant SL4500 series Server
· Tech Jobs and Minimum wage
· Linux Mag's Linux for Small Business Servers
· AMD's Sweet 16

Top News

· Best CPU: 10 top processors from AMD and Intel
· Samsung To Enter the Server Market?
· Weekend Topic: Should employers be able to fire employees caught looking for job
· Site Redesign: Comments? Suggestions? Help?
· Poll Time: Milkshake - Beverage or Dessert?
· Neoseeker plays with Iwill's DVD266-R!
· Help Wanted!
· Honesty: The best policy?
· No comment!
· It's Official: nitro_fish owns me...

Latest Poll

There are currently no polls in the news database

News Archive

· November 2015
· January 2013
· December 2012
· November 2012
· October 2012
· August 2012
· July 2012
· June 2012
· May 2012
· April 2012
· March 2012
· February 2012
· January 2012
· December 2011
· November 2011
· April 2011
· March 2011
· February 2011
· January 2011
· November 2010
· October 2010
· September 2010
· August 2010
· July 2010
· June 2010
· May 2010
· April 2010
· March 2010
· February 2010
· January 2010
· December 2009
· September 2009
· August 2009
· July 2009
· June 2009
· May 2009
· April 2009
· March 2009
· February 2009
· January 2009
· December 2008
· November 2008
· October 2008
· September 2008
· August 2008
· July 2008
· June 2008
· May 2008
· April 2008
· March 2008
· February 2008
· January 2008
· December 2007
· November 2007
· October 2007
· September 2007
· August 2007
· July 2007
· June 2007
· May 2007
· April 2007
· March 2007
· February 2007
· January 2007
· December 2006
· November 2006
· October 2006
· September 2006
· August 2006
· July 2006
· June 2006
· May 2006
· April 2006
· March 2006
· February 2006
· January 2006
· December 2005
· November 2005
· October 2005
· September 2005
· August 2005
· July 2005
· June 2005
· May 2005
· April 2005
· March 2005
· February 2005
· January 2005
· December 2004
· November 2004
· October 2004
· September 2004
· August 2004
· July 2004
· June 2004
· May 2004
· April 2004
· March 2004
· February 2004
· January 2004
· December 2003
· November 2003
· October 2003
· September 2003
· August 2003
· July 2003
· June 2003
· May 2003
· April 2003
· March 2003
· February 2003
· January 2003
· December 2002
· November 2002
· October 2002
· September 2002
· August 2002
· July 2002
· June 2002
· May 2002
· April 2002
· March 2002
· February 2002
· January 2002
· December 2001
· November 2001
· October 2001
· September 2001
· August 2001
· July 2001
· June 2001
· May 2001
· April 2001
· March 2001
· February 2001
· January 2001
· December 2000
· November 2000
· October 2000
· September 2000
· August 2000
· July 2000
· June 2000
· May 2000
· April 2000
· March 2000
· February 2000
· January 2000

Theme Selector

The theme override option is disabled

Welcome to our website

To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

2CPU.com » News » January 2004 » Linux Kernel Hacker Interview @ Arstechnica

Linux Kernel Hacker Interview @ Arstechnica

Posted by: Jim on: 01/22/2004 02:37 PM [ Print | 14 comment(s) ]

Three of the guys over at Arstechnica got together and interviewed Robert Love, a prominent Linux Kernel hacker. The topic of conversation? Version 2.6 of the Linux Kernel, of course.
Ars: What's going on with explicit hyperthreading2 support for Pentium 4? As we understand it, the 2.6 scheduler treats logical processor pairs as independent entities with independent caches and independent functional units. There's a batch scheduler in the works that promises to schedule things with an awareness that resources are shared, as well as scheduling similar-priority threads together. What's planned, ultimately, for this work?

Love: Optimizing for HT


Digg it! Slashdot Del.icio.us Technorati Fark it! Binklist Furl Newsvine Windows Live Netscape Google Bookmarks Reddit! LinkaGoGo Tailrank Wink Dzone Simpy Spurl Yahoo! MyWeb NetVouz RawSugar Smarking Scuttle Magnolia BlogMarks Nowpublic FeedMeLinks Wists Onlywire Connotia Shadows Co.mments

Related Stories

12/02/2003 03:04 PM: Linux Kernel Security Advisory! by Jim
I noticed by way of the The Inquirer that a new security flaw has been found in 2.4.x Linux kernels. It allows local users to escalate their privileges. The problem is that the kernel function "d...

11/07/2001 12:50 AM: New Thunder K7 BIOS, and a New Linux Kernel by Hooz
According to Electic Tech, there is a new BIOS for the Thunder K7. What does it fix? Update MP support, add L1 cache to the total cache size display, add Latency, AGP Fast Write override options.Whil...

05/15/2000 01:56 PM: Linux Kernel configuration by J0rdan
I had a request to go over some kernel configuration/tweaking in the Linux forum. I went through a general workstation configuration of mine that should bring your kernel down to the 400k range. I had...


« 3dchips.net tests 10 Opteron coolers! · Linux Kernel Hacker Interview @ Arstechnica · SCO attempts to involve Congress in perpetual Linux drama »

Comment

dualboot_2xcpu
Removed from forum


Posts: 2396
Joined: 2001-07-16

#26082 Posted on: 01/22/2004 08:53 PM
So is the way the linux kernel handles the SMP/SMT hardware efficient?

/*asskoala if you reply to this please dont be biased against linux, I really want to know your opinion without all the bias on this matter.*/

alex

I finally have SMP. Looking for the next Mrs. Right now (c) 2004. HEMI.

Comment

jives
BP6 User



Posts: 2399
Joined: 2001-05-18

#26083 Posted on: 01/22/2004 09:04 PM
Hm makes since the problem making each logical CPU look as if it is a real CPU to the system. At least the Linux community is open about this and willing to see it as a problem that needs work.

Any one know how Other OSs handle HT in MultiCPU systems?

Comment

i_wolf
labhair dom as gaelige


Posts: 2034
Joined: 2002-11-19

#26084 Posted on: 01/22/2004 11:32 PM
i would love to see some HT benchmarks on and off with this new kernel.
That was a good question about the efficiency of the 2.6 solution? I reckon benchmarks (real world) woudl be the only way to tell...

Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!

Comment

Jim_
Administrator



Posts: 3574
Joined: 2000-03-15

#26085 Posted on: 01/22/2004 11:40 PM
Originally posted by i_wolf
i would love to see some HT benchmarks on and off with this new kernel.
That was a good question about the efficiency of the 2.6 solution? I reckon benchmarks (real world) woudl be the only way to tell...
... and you'll get them when I publish the second half of my HT article in early February. It will have the 3.2GHz P4 and dual 3.2GHz Xeons w/ 1MB L3 cache benchmarked under 2.6. Currently I'm planning on looking at compiling performance, php/apache/mysql, and I'll also use DOTS (Database opensource test suite) which involves MySQL and Java. Of course, that's if I can make it work. It's rather involved.

I'm open to other Linux benchmark suggestions as well.

[url="http://www.2cpu.com"][size=1]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad.[/size]

Comment

AssKoala
Anti-Zealot @ GATech



Posts: 3302
Joined: 2002-01-02

#26086 Posted on: 01/23/2004 12:03 AM
Originally posted by dualboot_2xcpu
So is the way the linux kernel handles the SMP/SMT hardware efficient?

/*asskoala if you reply to this please dont be biased against linux, I really want to know your opinion without all the bias on this matter.*/

alex


I've done enough Kernel Hacking (and reading of documentation) to say no. Compared to the XP/2k3 Kernel Implementation, it looks like an undergrad project. I'm still working on learning all the Windows internals.

The 2.6 Scheduler is a lot better than the crap they had in 2.4, though, so I give them credit.

Actually, a friend of mine had to take the 2.6 Scheduler and implement it in the 2.4 Kernel as a weekend project in his CS class. I have to take that one next semester...

Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

jives
BP6 User



Posts: 2399
Joined: 2001-05-18

#26087 Posted on: 01/23/2004 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Jim_
I'm open to other Linux benchmark suggestions as well.


I'll take anything you want to do with compression, file compression (bzip2, gzip, etc), picture compression and/or video compression.

The vast majority of tasks that I do that consume any noticeable amount of time normally involves compressing or decompressing data in some form.

Comment

jives
BP6 User



Posts: 2399
Joined: 2001-05-18

#26088 Posted on: 01/23/2004 12:23 AM
Originally posted by AssKoala
I've done enough Kernel Hacking (and reading of documentation) to say no. Compared to the XP/2k3 Kernel Implementation, it looks like an undergrad project. I'm still working on learning all the Windows internals.


So does Windows know the difference between the logical vs the physical and correct for that in the scheduler?

Originally posted by AssKoala
The 2.6 Scheduler is a lot better than the crap they had in 2.4, though, so I give them credit.


It

Comment

AssKoala
Anti-Zealot @ GATech



Posts: 3302
Joined: 2002-01-02

#26089 Posted on: 01/23/2004 12:25 AM
Originally posted by jives
So does Windows know the difference between the logical vs the physical and correct for that in the scheduler?


Of course.

XP and Server2003 do.

That's one of the major differences between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

i_wolf
labhair dom as gaelige


Posts: 2034
Joined: 2002-11-19

#26090 Posted on: 01/23/2004 04:25 AM
Hi there Jim,
Good call on the bench's. I can't wait to see what you got in store.

bench's i would like to see....
audio compression: LAME mp3 encoding, Ogg encoding
Vid encoding: xvid encoding
Linpack
compilation .... test how long it takes to compile kde (full) [joke.. this takes ages!!]
3d modelling. .... blender3d

Could i ask you to try something actually while you are benchmarking. I presume you will be using the latest GCC to compile the source for the apps you will be using.... while you are doing that (i know its huge extra effort) but would you use Intel C Compiler as well (i think its free for linux for educational purposes... and it doesn't get any more educational than this!)... just to see how good properly optimized threaded code runs with the new kernel.

Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!

Comment

Jim_
Administrator



Posts: 3574
Joined: 2000-03-15

#26091 Posted on: 01/23/2004 04:28 AM
I'll look into it. I can't make any promises as this is a relatively large undertaking, but Hooz and I have been curious about Intel's compiler for quite some time.

I'll probably run the numbers initially with GCC and then maybe, if I have time, I'll try out the Intel compiler as well.

[url="http://www.2cpu.com"][size=1]2CPU.com[/url] - Because two are always better than one! [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad.[/size]

Comment

AssKoala
Anti-Zealot @ GATech



Posts: 3302
Joined: 2002-01-02

#26092 Posted on: 01/23/2004 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Jim_
I'll look into it. I can't make any promises as this is a relatively large undertaking, but Hooz and I have been curious about Intel's compiler for quite some time.

I'll probably run the numbers initially with GCC and then maybe, if I have time, I'll try out the Intel compiler as well.


If Intel's Linux-version Compiler has all the features of the Windows version, it'll produce some insanely fast code. I'd heard that its still missing some features, though.

In Compiler benchmarks (benchmarking the code it compiles, not how long it takes), it blows past GCC, which lags behind MS Visual Studio. Especially with SSE2 compiles (I think in SSE2 Optimized code, it was at least triple Visual Studio and GCC's performance).

Of course, GCC is about compiling on anything, not being the fastest.

Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed.

Comment

i_wolf
labhair dom as gaelige


Posts: 2034
Joined: 2002-11-19

#26093 Posted on: 01/23/2004 08:59 AM
the only problem is that it breaks compatibility with a LOT of gcc code. particularly it had probs with pre linking code for me on certain apps. But having said that that was on version 7 and im told version 8 is out now and has supposedly resolved this issue?! who knows.
Funnily enough, code ive compiled myself in the past has seen more of an improvement on my opteron than xeon rig! who would have thunk it?!
There was a discussion in ars before about version 7 ICC and that its heavy use of autovectorised SSE2 even in instances where it shouldn't be used... e.g. where IEEE floating point precision is required has meant that the resulting binary produces erronous results. I don't know enough to comment on that. Just read it yonks ago and it sounded like it should be taken with a grain of salt at the time. but still caught my interest.
I think it was koepi or was it nick ... that compiled part of xvid code and said they got a free 10 to 20 percent improvement! (my own memory is a bit dodge) but this is a real impressive improvement.

Jim/Hooz it would be awesome if you pull off these benchs!

Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!

Comment

Forge
labhair dom as gaelige



Posts: 720
Joined: 2001-05-12

#26094 Posted on: 01/23/2004 02:09 PM
Maybe a little GCC vs. ICC on Opteron, too, if I can swing it. Could get nifty rates of change to graph, then, too, plus GCC32 and GCC64 code versus ICC32 code.

No promises, though. I think I'm going to have a full plate for a while.

Registered Linux user 82133 (li.org has a short memory)

Comment

jrv-austin
Registered User


Posts: 256
Joined: 2004-01-19

#26095 Posted on: 01/23/2004 04:50 PM
Originally posted by AssKoala
Of course, GCC is about compiling on anything, not being the fastest.

Historically the goal on gcc was to generate "correct" code, which means it does what the source code intends (which may or may not be what the programmer intended!).

An important bias in gcc is the need for maintainability. There are a lot of different processors supported, and a change for one processor must not make other processors less reliable.

icc's emphasis on the other hand has always been speed of the generated code, and Intel has always been willing to run a lot of risks.

I was the gcc x86 maintainer for a few years around 1990 and rejected numerous patches from Intel precisely because of the reliability issue. They'd send a patch, I'd run a test suite and get half a dozen bombs, and that was that. Generally they weren't interested in fixing it the issue and so the change was dropped - it was like they were paid to write code and not to debug it.

The other problem is that the x86 violates the design criteria in gcc for the "weakest" processor supported. There are nowhere near enough registers for the reg allocator, and some instructions must use memory in unusual ways (float to int conversions). gcc's architecture was unfortunately set in the 1980s when nobody dreamed an x86 architecture would survive. icc and the Microsoft compilers have had the luxury of only 3-4 processors to consider, and weren't being done on volunteer time.

Tyan K8W S2885, 2x Opteron 248, 8GB ECC DDR400, 3ware 8506-8 mirrored 2x Raptor 74, 2x 7k250 HP zx6000 1x 1.5 GHz 6MB Itanic2

2CPU.com » News » January 2004 » Linux Kernel Hacker Interview @ Arstechnica