These days, what are good reasons for setting thread affinity rather than leaving it to the OS?

末鹿安然 提交于 2019-12-22 12:48:25

问题


Searching answers here for "thread affinity", I see a lot of interest in doing it but little justification for it save possibly getting stable QueryPerformanceTimer results.

Assuming a modern OS and a modern 2-4 socket workstation/server class machine with modern 4-6 core CPUs, what good reasons would anyone have for thinking they know better than their OS's scheduler ? Are there any real world situations where taking more control of thead affinity is the right thing to do ? What sort of performance benefits can be demonstrated ?

The last time I saw a really good case for setting thread affinity somewhere (as in, it was backed up by concrete results showing genuine and significant improvements in system performance), it was some obscure thing to do with Win2K device drivers. But I haven't seen anything like that in years so when someone tells me they need to control thread affinity (but not why) these days I am deeply sceptical... but curious to be shown otherwise.


回答1:


The primary reason is if you have something that depends heavily upon caching. The OS scheduler doesn't necessarily take that into account to the degree you might like.




回答2:


I use it to assign threads to cores; for example in a simulation you do the physics entirely on one core, and allow the rest of the computation to be executed on another one. It makes sense to be able to control this, if you're on a tight environment where you know the hardware.

Of course, configuring this needs to be done per system, so by default I let the OS decide the cores on which to run, but keep the option of restricting core usage.




回答3:


In the OS kernel and sometimes in kernel mode drivers you need to perform the same action on every CPU (e.g. update a system register). You can do that in a loop in a single thread, changing the affinity on each iteration.




回答4:


For desktops it's quite unnecessary.

But I can see some applications where it would help. For example the CPU cache likes it if the app that runs on it doesn't change.

Another possibility is you have a critical task - you give it an entire CPU, and the other tasks use the rest of the CPUs.

Or the opposite: You have some low priority tasks, you put them all on one CPU, then leave the others free for more important tasks (using process priority will give you most of this benefit without having affinity, but I can imagine some memory heavy cases where it wouldn't).




回答5:


I would agree its best to leave to the CPU to figure this out in most situations. However, the most common reason to go for thread affinity as far as I have seen is when you need good cache dependency. In multiple CPU systems, when a particular CPU caches something individually for itself and if the same thing has been cached in some other CPU, then I believe it can automatically get invalidated on the other CPU. So if a particular thread keeps changing CPUs on which it executes, then the cache hit rate will be too less. So in this case I guess it makes sense for the programmer to be a better judge of the COU affinities. I also think the above point by Ariel about making sure a critical task constantly gets a CPU without throttling other low priority processes also makes sense.



来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6957687/these-days-what-are-good-reasons-for-setting-thread-affinity-rather-than-leavin

易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!