3 ms·
Like sibling comment says, it’s more efficient. It allows those cores to sort of pretend they’re ECs. It also reserves those PCs for bursty workloads which woul
by eyelidlessness 5y ago
Like sibling comment says, it’s more efficient. It allows those cores to sort of pretend they’re ECs. It also reserves those PCs for bursty workloads which would otherwise be contentious for cache and memory bandwidth in an evenly balanced scheduler.
- yazaddaruvala 5y agoIs it basically giving programs some automatic core affinity or are the unused cores meant to be unused until the first set are saturated? I guess also, are the 4 unused cores always the same?
- eyelidlessness 5y agoMy guess is it’s treating the “extra” cores as a throttling mechanism without throttling. If your thermal budget is 9 (8 + 2*1/2), and you operate normally with a thermal budget of ~5, you can temporarily go to 9 without any noticeable difference in actual performance, or heat, or cooling. In another sense, they’re probably leaving a lot of performance potential on the table to achieve that perception. As far as which cores are demoted… I definitely don’t know enough to speculate. If favoring the same set would affect longevity of the device, they’d rotate. If not it’s simpler not to do that. I have no idea which is more likely.