Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sickpig@opinioni.net>) id 1TMJvw-0004o0-U9
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:40:21 +0000
Received: from host36.ns3.it ([80.79.54.36] helo=mail.opinioni.net)
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <sickpig@opinioni.net>) id 1TMJvu-00025J-Ci
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:40:19 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.opinioni.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE4D4DA322;
	Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:42:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.opinioni.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (opinioni.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id sUWw+lmMSZjA; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:42:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.50] (78-134-6-72.v4.ngi.it [78.134.6.72])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.opinioni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00D974DA31E;
	Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:42:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5076DA4E.80504@opinioni.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:40:14 +0200
From: Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
CC: Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>,
 pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance
References: 
 <CAFwQ8rcvw4mSoJ9q+ouONCeB9dg1T9gAUV5J27MpVZrehRHayQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFwQ8rfm2AcuoFHDfBLA_hg7ffbsYNsrsaJPDqcOeGqaVW02OQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFwQ8rcyCKcoeEn62_QHMRSmJM03ULERtW6_R=3TaO0twOEV9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5076D433.7090605@opinioni.net>
	<CAGTBQpYGyq70q_S_dUngSwB7yLbbCxetnfXpaMC9LEr7zL6iWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGTBQpYGyq70q_S_dUngSwB7yLbbCxetnfXpaMC9LEr7zL6iWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201210/149
X-Sequence-Number: 48108

On 10/11/2012 04:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net> wrote:
>> sorry to come late to the party, but being in a similar condition
>> I've googled a bit and I've found a way to disable hyperthreading without
>> the need to reboot the system and entering the bios:
>>
>> echo 0 >/sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpuX/online
>>
>> where X belongs to 1..(#cores * 2) if hyperthreading is enabled
>> (cpu0 can't be switched off).
>>
>> didn't try myself on live system, but I definitely will
>> as soon as I have a new machine to test.
>
> Question is... will that remove the performance penalty of HyperThreading?

So I've added to my todo list to perform a test to verify this claim :)

> I don't think so, because a big one is the register file split (half
> the hardware registers go to a CPU, half to the other). If that action
> doesn't tell the CPU to "unsplit", some shared components may become
> unbogged, like the decode stage probably, but I'm not sure it's the
> same as disabling it from the BIOS.

Although I think that you're probably right to assume that disabling HT
through the syfs interface won't remove the performance penalty for real.

thanks

Andrea