From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EA01381F3 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA5AF21C019; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437FBE058F for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j5so2332410bkw.40 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:58:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=oTWaK9j4fcJJ4pHfROZMLL27pnZdjNLYOgAXuDCUhMU=; b=eOVs92kYy/GFHtk9jVFrCQcYkxo6T6YwA8FcfWiU0X5099cXqShaUN9PMg9vtLHmaQ 936gvLE7lEBorr0Vpk+rLwKE30CB3XrqWldzJi4cb+2kHfvTlD2HEoXnxgzEN8yj0cDm oA2miReDPIrU7WmuIurjKV2NmW1Niw2zhas6Z4aXRs33uaYGhYKqOVREYD0uv7m8WILi EbyMDXZHoRlPtObqrPYbBgYKGxs+gh7jMLj8lQ3VY3IJ2GAWdl8GwCbhbhyAPLyEsTLu O9ze4mIbwm3nLHDW1llgP+5ddhIbxfiRnxdCwmypVtv85atlcr18RkxTGFAf7TOIDQAA 3W8Q== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.125.137 with SMTP id gs9mr4860611bkc.22.1355673495803; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:58:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.224.74 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:58:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2349232.AYnSBWEt4m@eve> References: <2736930.yacMY2ChLQ@eve> <3746768.pcaWKEa8bt@localhost> <2349232.AYnSBWEt4m@eve> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:58:15 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Dual or Quad CPU complications? From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 6c25ded6-7d12-40d7-9212-758ff327467f X-Archives-Hash: 0e4955c44f302429b04eeac5aa04df7c On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:39 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2012 01:52:46 PM Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> Am Samstag, 15. Dezember 2012, 20:57:24 schrieb J. Roeleveld: >> > Even on a system with only 2 sockets, it can be useful to have NUMA >> > available. >> >> or not, because it costs you performance. > > When does it cost performance? > In all situations? It adds some additional logic to memory allocation (put an allocation near the process that uses it) and to process scheduling (keep the process near its memory, but bump it to a more distant idle core if necessary). In all honestly, it's not a performance loss you're likely to notice, unless you're so in need of squeezing out every spare cycle that you most definitely _have_ hardware where there are disconnected memory banks. I'm not convinced it's even measurable for us mundanes and our hardware. > >> And while the starting questions were not stupid this thread is overflowing >> with stupid answers. > > Matter of opinion... Indeed. -- :wq