News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by dan-robertson on Sunday May 28, 2023 @06:17AM (#36102756)
Why is the rtt measured here on canon lake so asymmetric? I would have expected symmetry along the leading diagonal.
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by jeffbee on Sunday May 28, 2023 @09:21AM (#36103759)
And why is core 0 magical on that machine?
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by jcranmer on Sunday May 28, 2023 @10:18AM (#36104193)
IIRC, core 0 is the one that tends to service processor interrupts, which may mean that the data is unusually noisy in a way that tends to underestimate the RTT latency time.
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by jeffbee on Sunday May 28, 2023 @10:35AM (#36104335)
There’s a similar weird artifact at index 64.
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by innocenat on Sunday May 28, 2023 @12:05PM (#36105261)
Core 64 is the hyper-threaded pair of core 0.
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by jeffbee on Sunday May 28, 2023 @02:34PM (#36106552)
Not on that machine. That would only be true on a 128-thread system, but this one has 96 threads.
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by yvdriess on Sunday May 28, 2023 @10:37AM (#36104350)
Speculation, but could it be because of a ring topology?
Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by Cockbrand on Sunday May 28, 2023 @10:47AM (#36104442)
This might be a nitpick, but it seems like already the intro sentence isn't factually accurate:

> Over the past 10-15 years, per-core throughput slowed down

I assume that the author meant that the acceleration of per-core throughput over time has slowed down, not the throughput itself.

Re:Intel CPU Die Topology by _a_a_a_ on Sunday May 28, 2023 @01:47PM (#36106170)
> Over the past 10-15 years, per-core throughput slowed down

throughput of what?