![]() ![]() Windows does not appear to have upgraded its support for scheduling since Intel made the improvements for win7 sp1.Īpparently, the OP isn't using a high level parallel library such as OpenMP, and, as we just said, the gnu OpenMP wouldn't help scheduling on the OS in question.īoost::thread library has been used in similar contexts, but it seems difficult to find out how if it should handle affinity on various OS. According to the docs, current versions should support OMP_PLACES on linux, although John surely is more up to date on how this relates to the most often used distros. Gnu OpenMP lacks support for affinity on Windows (as, apparently, MacOS). Pinning an application to odd numbered logical processes seems a reasonable solution if not using Intel OpenMP. Your 2nd comment wasn't visible at the time I answered, even though the web site time stamps indicate a 3 hour lag. There isn't any satisfactory universal solution to the question of running multiple applications with minimal contention for logical processors without instructing each application to use its own group of cores. ![]() If it is not possible to disable HyperThreading, it may be necessary to experiment with setting a number of threads or workers which is greater than number of cores but less than the total number of logical processors. Other threading libraries, including gnu and Microsoft OpenMP, and Intel cilk(tm) plus, don't offer a facility to schedule threads evenly across cores. If the application has been built for a version of OpenMP such as Intel libiomp5 which supports affinity, and the number of threads is set to number of cores, it is important to set OMP_PLACES=cores. Even then, Windows may exhibit more difficulty than other OS in allocating threads evenly across cores. You should be running Windows 7 SP1 or a newer Windows version in order to support scheduling for hyperthreading. ![]() I'm looking for someone to give me some technical advice.Īny ideas on things to look for that may help? I don't want to tell users to turn off HT to use my stuff. There are something like 100 users who are builders like me, and few make large intensive stuff like me. Most users are musicians who never build Reaktor stuff. I want others to use stuff I do, and they are on Macs and PCs. I've re-checked all my overclock BIOS parameters and tried different settings. But I fear maybe I have set up something that is not helping this. I use an overclocked Core i7-2600K 4.4 GHz that I built in 2011. If I turn off hyperthreading, I can get 4 such tracks in the problem DAWs, I think - I did not do extensive testing that way as turning HT off created a few other issues for me. I have 4 physical/8 logical cores and in this DAW I can easily use 4 tracks.īy assigning CPU affinity to 4 Reaktor processes running standalone, I can also manually create 4 such instruments. I often can not run 2 such tracks.Īnother does a better job but has a bit more overhead and I can run 3 such tracks.Īnother allows me to specify which cores it may use, so I select odd number cores only. One places them seemingly at random, but usually in adjacent logical cores - one physical core. On three different DAWs I see three different behaviors. Reaktor is a single core application, so to achieve more we may have to split our stuff in pieces and chain them together using a Digital Audio Workstation on separate audio tracks. I share these freely with other users on a library forum provided by the vendor. I build some software for experimental music using a tool called Reaktor. I think my problem is related to hyperthreading. I'll be as succinct as possible but I will supply more details if needed. since a moderator approved my post, I'll supply more details. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |