Re: gthread: how many cores do I have?

On Fri 2010-04-02 17:40:15, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > Actually, he got the naming right. Even single-core cpus have cores...
> Except that of course back when multiple-core chips were nonexistent,
> nobody used the term "core". So that isn't really a convincing
> argument.

So what? Historically, each processor had just one core with just one
thread running. It was not important to distingush between sockets,
cores and threads.

Today, you can have single-cpu single-core SMP system. (Pentium 4 HT).

So, historically, using word processor was ok; these days... :-(.

> > Often, processors is understood to be sockets.
> So? That doesn't mean it's correct. "processor" is the traditional
> term and that is also used by existing APIs in many operating
> systems.

It is traditional term, and it is ambiguous these days. CoreDuo is
Intel *processor*.

> One also talks about "multiprocessing", not "multicoring".  "SMP" =
> symmetric multiprocessing for instance. "cores" are just a current
> implementation detail.

You are right about implementation detail; what gthread is interested
is number of available *threads*, not cores, nor sockets.

That is 2 on P-4 HT, and 32 on UltraSparc T1 (aka Niagara).

(cesky, pictures)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]