Repository navigation
Conversation
…red cores ftscalingbench keeps only the CPUs whose MAXMHZ equals the highest MAXMHZ on the machine, so that efficiency cores are left out. That assumes every performance core shares one clock ceiling. Intel's Turbo Boost Max 3.0 bins a couple of cores above their siblings, and on such a part only those few survive the filter. On an i7-14650HX (8 performance cores, two of them at 5200 MHz and the rest at 5000 MHz, plus 8 efficiency cores at 3700 MHz) the benchmark picked two CPUs and reported scaling for 2 threads instead of 8. Split performance and efficiency cores at the midpoint between the highest and lowest clock instead, which keeps all the performance cores however they are individually binned. Machines that report one clock for every core, or no clock at all, are unaffected.
| @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ | |||
| ``Tools/ftscalingbench`` now uses every performance core on processors that | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't need NEWS.d for internal tool.
| @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ | |||
| """Tests for Tools/ftscalingbench/ftscalingbench.py.""" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I personally don't think that we have to keep this file just for internal tooling.
| # Choose only CPUs on the same node, unique cores, and try to avoid | ||
| # "efficiency" cores. | ||
| if node == 0 and core not in cores and maxmhz == max_mhz_all: | ||
| if node == 0 and core not in cores and maxmhz >= min_mhz_wanted: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the core group is separated into two groups as you siad, why just check something like this?
| if node == 0 and core not in cores and maxmhz >= min_mhz_wanted: | |
| if node == 0 and core not in cores and maxmhz > min_mhz_all: |
corona10
left a comment
corona10
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Left some suggestion and question about your change.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase And if you don't make the requested changes, you will be poked with soft cushions! |
2 participants
Fixes #155090.
The efficiency-core filter compares each core's MAXMHZ against the highest on the machine, which also drops the performance cores that Turbo Boost Max 3.0 bins below their fastest siblings. This splits the two groups at the midpoint between the highest and lowest clock instead.
Machines that report one clock for every core, or none at all, keep every core as before. The
>=matters there: with MAXMHZ empty both bounds are zero, and>would have selected nothing.Splitting at the largest gap between distinct clocks would be more principled and would handle a three-tier layout as well. It seemed like more machinery than this needs, but I'll change it if you'd rather.
The tests are new; five of the six also pass against main unchanged.