Many recent CPUs out there--Alder Lake from Intel and many big.LITTLE designs from ARM--have heterogeneous CPU topologies: some cores are faster than others. There exists good ways to detect such CPUs on Windows and macOS, but Linux/Android seems lacking.
On x86, there is a CPUID bit: leaf 7 page 0 EDX bit 15. But ARM's CPUID equivalent is privileged, so OS help is required.
Is there a good way on Linux to detect this?
For posterity:
On Windows, use GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx to enumerate packages and cores, then look for .Processor.EfficiencyClass being different values among cores (queries using RelationProcessorCore).
On macOS, use sysctlbyname on hw.nperflevels and check whether it exists and its value is greater than 1.
Related
I'm trying to emulate a processor which consists processor cores with different max frequencies per core, like ARM processors or newer Intel processors which have a couple of Performance Cores and Efficiency Cores.
I tried it with Qemu, but I only didn't get far, the only thing I found was qemu-system-aarch64 where you can configure cores per die and die count using nema but i did't find a possibilty to change frequency or core architechture for a specific die. Is it even possible with qemu or is there a alternative? Preferably the emulation should be able to run linux.
For clarification, I'm trying to show that on a heterogeneus system i.e. a processor with different core speeds a certain framework works better then another one.
Thanks to Nate I found Intel Simics which is able to simulate heterogeneous systems.
I am wondering how is Linux kernel made aware of all available cores on the system? For the purposes of scheduler I'd assume kernel has to know how many cores there are, who provides kernel info about all the cores on the system?
Who provides kernel info about all the cores on the system?
It depends on which system.
For 80x86 PCs, the firmware constructs table/s (ACPI tables now) which provide a list of CPUs, and the kernel parses those tables.
For small embedded systems (with no firmware), the number of CPUs might be compile-time constant or provided by the boot loader somehow (e.g. "flattened device tree").
I have search the various questions (and web) but did not find any satisfactory answer.
I am curious about whether to use threads to directly load the cores of the CPU or use an OpenCL implementation. Is OpenCl just there to make multi processors/cores just more portable, meaning porting the code to either GPU or CPU or is OpenCL faster and more efficient? I am aware that GPU's have more processing units but that is not the question. Is it indirect multi threading in code or using OpneCL?
Sorry I have another question...
If the IGP shares PCI lines with the Descrete Graphics Card and its drivers can not be loaded under Windows 7, I have to assume that it will not be available, even if you want to use the processing cores of the integrated GPU only. Is this correct or is there a way to access the IGP without drivers.
EDIT: As #Yann Vernier point out in the comment section, I haven't be strict enough with the terms I used. So in this post I use the term thread as a synonym of workitem. I'm not refering to the CPU threads.
I can’t really compare OCL with any other technologies that will allow using the different cores of a CPU as I only used OCL so far.
However I might bring some input about OCL especially that I don’t really agree with ScottD.
First of all, even though an OCL kernel developed to run on a GPU will run as well on a CPU it doesn’t mean that it’ll be efficient. The reason is simply that OCL doesn’t work the same way on CPU and GPU. To have a good understanding of how it differs, see the chap 6 of “heterogeneous computing with opencl”. To summary, while the GPU will launch a bunch of threads within a given workgroup at the same time, the CPU will execute on a core one thread after another within the same workgroup. See as well the point 3.4 of the standard about the two different types of programming models supported by OCL. This can explain why an OCL kernel could be less efficient on a CPU than a “classic” code: because it was design for a GPU. Whether a developer will target the CPU or the GPU is not a problem of “serious work” but is simply dependent of the type of programming model that suits best your need. Also, the fact that OCL support CPU as well is nice since it can degrade gracefully on computer not equipped with a proper GPU (though it must be hard to find such computer).
Regarding the AMD platform I’ve noticed some problem with the CPU as well on a laptop with an ATI. I observed low performance on some of my code and crashes as well. But the reason was due to the fact that the processor was an Intel. The AMD platform will declare to have a CPU device available even if it is an Intel CPU. However it won’t be able to use it as efficiently as it should. When I run the exact same code targeting the CPU but after installing (and using) the Intel platform all the issues were gone. That’s another possible reason for poor performance.
Regarding the iGPU, it does not share PCIe lines, it is on the CPU die (at least of Intel) and yes you need the driver to use it. I assume that you tried to install the driver and got a message like” your computer does not meet the minimum requirement…” or something similar. I guess it depends on the computer, but in my case, I have a desktop equipped with a NVIDIA and an i7 CPU (it has an HD4000 GPU). In order to use the iGPU I had first to enable it in the BIOS, which allowed me to install the driver. Of Course only one of the two GPU is used by the display at a time (depending on the BIOS setting), but I can access both with OCL.
In recent experiments using the Intel opencl tools we experienced that the opencl performance was very similar to CUDA and intrincics based AVX code on gcc and icc -- way better than earlier experiments (some years ago) where we saw opencl perform worse.
I don't understand what 32 bit and 64 bit means. It seems that people say 64 bit computers run faster - but why? Does it mean that there are 64 bit integers instead of 32? If it's something like that, is there a way to write a program to determine if we're on a 32 bit or 64 bit machine?
On 64-bit machines pointers are 8 bytes (64 bits). On 32-bit machines they are 4 bytes (32 bits). Thus we can determine by the size of a pointer what we are dealing with, in it's simplest form:
#define IS_64BIT (sizeof(void *) == 8)
The only drawback is that a 64 bit computer running in 32 bit mode will register as 32 bit. Of course, this isn't actually important as for all intents and purposes a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit computer will be a 32 bit computer.
There's actually several different things your asking here.
First of all there's the CPU. Most modern day CPUs (within the past 5-years approx) will support 64-bit.
Now just because the CPU supports it doesn't mean the OS supports it, that's where you have either 64-bit OS or 32-bit OS (32-bit is also known as x86, there's small technical differences in the x86 refers to the CPU instruction set, but for most common usage x86 and 32-bit are interchangeable)
Even if the OS supports it, it doesn't mean the specific program you're running supports 64-bit. What most (if not all?) 64-bit OS's do is they have a 32-bit emulation mode so you can still run 32-bit programs.
Now for your question of how to determine which architecture you're running on, the most reliable way is to ask the OS through some API call.
As for why 64-bit is sometimes considered faster, it because with 32-bits it is only possible to address 4GB of memory, whereas with 64-bit the limit imposed by address space is much higher (as in about 4 billion times higher) and the limiting factor is hardware not address space. As to when and why more memory is faster, that's a separate topic altogether.
64-bit machines do not run faster than 32-bit machines except in cases where 64-bit math is being done or in cases where more than 4 GB of RAM is needed.
64-bit AMD (and later Intel) machines run faster than 32-bit x86 machines because when AMD designed the new instruction set they added more CPU registers and made SSE math the default.
32-bit x86 systems can waste a lot of CPU time pushing data around in RAM, while a x86_64 system can store that data in CPU registers instead. Registers are much faster than level-1 CPU cache. Having more registers also saves CPU instructions that otherwise need to store the old value of a register in RAM, load in a different value from RAM, then load the original value back from RAM.
In some especially register-starved cases the extra registers can gain 30% speed for a program. The benefit is usually much less than that.
The speed benefits from assuming SSE2 are many. In 32-bit CPUs SSE instructions may or may not exist, so to use them the software needs to have clumsy test code and two (or more!) implementation of the math functions. Most software just doesn't care enough and so it never bothers, always falling back on x87 FPU math from the 486 days. The 64-bit CPUs made SSE2 a required part of the instruction set, so all x86_64 programs are free to assume it exists and use it in all cases.
64bit computers do not run faster, per se. It just can support higher precision (larger integers, more precise floats).
In some rare cases, libraries might jam two 32bit numbers into 64bits to perform a large number of parallel operations, possibly resulting in potentially up to 2x speedup. This might occur for some highly optimized scientific/numeric libraries, or in special applications that (for some reason or another) have been highly optimized at a very low level. For example, some multimedia software. It should be noted that such applications could always have made this tradeoff even in 32bit mode, but chose not to; they are merely trading away precision (which they may not need) for parallelism.
Operating system benchmarks which reveal faster performance (maybe <10% improvement) are not necessarily related to 64bit-related optimizations. 64bit architectures may be correlated with having for example more registers or advanced features that programs can take aware of [citation: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmarks ], which may be the cause of a performance difference (as well as other variables).
How to determine whether a CPU is 32bit or 64bit depends on what OS you are using. For example on Linux, you can call uname -a, though there's probably a better way to do so. If you're using C/C++, see the other answer for a way to determine it in a program.
Obviously, a 64-bit processor has a 64-bit address space, so you have more than 4 GB of RAM at your disposal. Does compiling the same program as 64-bit and running on a 64-bit CPU have any other advantages that might actually benefit programs that aren't enormous memory hogs?
I'm asking about CPUs in general, and Intel-compatible CPUs in particular.
There's a great article on Wikipedia about the differences and benefits of 64bit Intel/AMD cpus over their 32 bit versions. It should have all the information you need.
Some on the key differences are:
16 general purpose registers instead of 8
Additional SSE registers
A no execute (NX) bit to prevent buffer overrun attacks
The main advantage of a 64-bit CPU is the ability to have 64-bit pointer types that allow virtual address ranges greater than 4GB in size. On a 32-bit CPU, the pointer size is (typically) 32 bits wide, allowing a pointer to refer to one of 2^32 (4,294,967,296) discrete addresses. This allows a program to make a data structure in memory up to 4GB in size and resolve any data item in it by simply de-referencing a pointer. Reality is slightly more complex than this, but for the purposes of this discussion it's a good enough view.
A 64-bit CPU has 64-bit pointer types that can refer to any address with a space with 2^64 (18,446,744,073,709,551,616) discrete addresses, or 16 Exabytes. A process on a CPU like this can (theoretically) construct and logically address any part of a data structure up to 16 Exabytes in size by simply de-referencing a pointer (looking up data at an address held in the pointer).
This allows a process on a 64-bit CPU to work with a larger set of data (constrained by physical memory) than a process on a 32 bit CPU could. From the point of view of most users of 64-bit systems, the principal advantage is the ability for applications to work with larger data sets in memory.
Aside from that, you may get a native 64-bit integer type. A 64 bit integer makes arithmetic or logical operations using 64 bit types such as C's long long faster than one implemented as two 32-bit operations. Floating point arithmetic is unlikely to be significantly affected, as FPU's on most modern 32-bit CPU's natively support 64-bit double floating point types.
Any other performance advantages or enhanced feature sets are a function of specific chip implementations, rather than something inherent to a system having a 64 bit ALU.
This article may be helpful:
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/windowsxp/articles/581/1/The-difference-between-64-and-32-bit-processors
This one is a bit off-topic, but might help if you plan to use Ubuntu:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=368607
And this pdf below contains a detailed technical specification:
http://www.plmworld.org/access/tech_showcase/pdf/Advantage%20of%2064bit%20WS%20for%20NX.pdf
Slight correction. On 32-bit Windows, the limit is about 3GB of RAM. I believe the remaining 1GB of address space is reserved for hardware. You can still install 4GB, but only 3 will be accessable.
Personally I think anyone who hasn't happily lived with 16K on an 8-bit OS in a former life should be careful about casting aspersions against some of today's software starting to become porcine. The truth is that as our resources become more plentiful, so do our expectations. The day is not long off when 3GB will start to seem ridiculously small. Until that day, stick with your 32-bit OS and be happy.
About 1-3% of speed increase due to instruction level parallelism for 32-bit calculations.
Just wanted to add a little bit of information on the pros and cons of 64-bit CPUs. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/joshwil/2006/07/18/should-i-choose-to-take-advantage-of-64-bit/
The main difference between 32-bit processors and 64-bit processors is the speed they operate. 64-bit processors can come in dual core, quad core, and six core versions for home computing (with eight core versions coming soon). Multiple cores allow for increase processing power and faster computer operation. Software programs that require many calculations to function operate faster on the multi-core 64-bit processors, for the most part. It is important to note that 64-bit computers can still use 32-bit based software programs, even when the Windows operating system is a 64-bit version.
Another big difference between 32-bit processors and 64-bit processors is the maximum amount of memory (RAM) that is supported. 32-bit computers support a maximum of 3-4GB of memory, whereas a 64-bit computer can support memory amounts over 4 GB. This is important for software programs that are used for graphical design, engineering design or video editing, where many calculations are performed to render images, drawings, and video footage.
One thing to note is that 3D graphic programs and games do not benefit much, if at all, from switching to a 64-bit computer, unless the program is a 64-bit program. A 32-bit processor is adequate for any program written for a 32-bit processor. In the case of computer games, you'll get a lot more performance by upgrading the video card instead of getting a 64-bit processor.
In the end, 64-bit processors are becoming more and more commonplace in home computers. Most manufacturers build computers with 64-bit processors due to cheaper prices and because more users are now using 64-bit operating systems and programs. Computer parts retailers are offering fewer and fewer 32-bit processors and soon may not offer any at all.