Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cpu autoconfiguration #41

Closed
dgiero opened this issue Oct 12, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Cpu autoconfiguration #41

dgiero opened this issue Oct 12, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@dgiero
Copy link

dgiero commented Oct 12, 2017

Hi,
you wrote in the cpu.txt that on hyperthreading systems it is better to assign threads to physical cores, but I have a dual XEON wiht 10 physical cores each for a total of 40 logical cores and the autoconfiguratior gave me this:

"cpu_threads_conf" :
[
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 0 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 1 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 2 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 3 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 4 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 5 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 6 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 7 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 8 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 9 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 20 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 21 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 22 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 10 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 11 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 12 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 13 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 14 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 15 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 16 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 17 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 18 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 19 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 30 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 31 },
    { "low_power_mode" : false, "no_prefetch" : true, "affine_to_cpu" : 32 },

],

So the miner is using 26 logical cores, 20 physical cores + 6 HTT cores.

Can you explain me this discrepancy?

I think the HTT core IDs are: 20,21,22,30,31,32, am I right?
So I can test which configuration is better.
This is my hwloc-ls:

Machine (128GB)
  NUMANode L#0 (P#0 64GB)
    Socket L#0 + L3 L#0 (25MB)
      L2 L#0 (256KB) + L1d L#0 (32KB) + L1i L#0 (32KB) + Core L#0
        PU L#0 (P#0)
        PU L#1 (P#20)
      L2 L#1 (256KB) + L1d L#1 (32KB) + L1i L#1 (32KB) + Core L#1
        PU L#2 (P#1)
        PU L#3 (P#21)
      L2 L#2 (256KB) + L1d L#2 (32KB) + L1i L#2 (32KB) + Core L#2
        PU L#4 (P#2)
        PU L#5 (P#22)
      L2 L#3 (256KB) + L1d L#3 (32KB) + L1i L#3 (32KB) + Core L#3
        PU L#6 (P#3)
        PU L#7 (P#23)
      L2 L#4 (256KB) + L1d L#4 (32KB) + L1i L#4 (32KB) + Core L#4
        PU L#8 (P#4)
        PU L#9 (P#24)
      L2 L#5 (256KB) + L1d L#5 (32KB) + L1i L#5 (32KB) + Core L#5
        PU L#10 (P#5)
        PU L#11 (P#25)
      L2 L#6 (256KB) + L1d L#6 (32KB) + L1i L#6 (32KB) + Core L#6
        PU L#12 (P#6)
        PU L#13 (P#26)
      L2 L#7 (256KB) + L1d L#7 (32KB) + L1i L#7 (32KB) + Core L#7
        PU L#14 (P#7)
        PU L#15 (P#27)
      L2 L#8 (256KB) + L1d L#8 (32KB) + L1i L#8 (32KB) + Core L#8
        PU L#16 (P#8)
        PU L#17 (P#28)
      L2 L#9 (256KB) + L1d L#9 (32KB) + L1i L#9 (32KB) + Core L#9
        PU L#18 (P#9)
        PU L#19 (P#29)
  NUMANode L#1 (P#1 64GB)
    Socket L#1 + L3 L#1 (25MB)
      L2 L#10 (256KB) + L1d L#10 (32KB) + L1i L#10 (32KB) + Core L#10
        PU L#20 (P#10)
        PU L#21 (P#30)
      L2 L#11 (256KB) + L1d L#11 (32KB) + L1i L#11 (32KB) + Core L#11
        PU L#22 (P#11)
        PU L#23 (P#31)
      L2 L#12 (256KB) + L1d L#12 (32KB) + L1i L#12 (32KB) + Core L#12
        PU L#24 (P#12)
        PU L#25 (P#32)
      L2 L#13 (256KB) + L1d L#13 (32KB) + L1i L#13 (32KB) + Core L#13
        PU L#26 (P#13)
        PU L#27 (P#33)
      L2 L#14 (256KB) + L1d L#14 (32KB) + L1i L#14 (32KB) + Core L#14
        PU L#28 (P#14)
        PU L#29 (P#34)
      L2 L#15 (256KB) + L1d L#15 (32KB) + L1i L#15 (32KB) + Core L#15
        PU L#30 (P#15)
        PU L#31 (P#35)
      L2 L#16 (256KB) + L1d L#16 (32KB) + L1i L#16 (32KB) + Core L#16
        PU L#32 (P#16)
        PU L#33 (P#36)
      L2 L#17 (256KB) + L1d L#17 (32KB) + L1i L#17 (32KB) + Core L#17
        PU L#34 (P#17)
        PU L#35 (P#37)
      L2 L#18 (256KB) + L1d L#18 (32KB) + L1i L#18 (32KB) + Core L#18
        PU L#36 (P#18)
        PU L#37 (P#38)
      L2 L#19 (256KB) + L1d L#19 (32KB) + L1i L#19 (32KB) + Core L#19
        PU L#38 (P#19)
        PU L#39 (P#39)
@fireice-uk
Copy link
Owner

You have 10 physical cores and 25MB of L3 cache. So the auto suggestion algorithm assigned 13 (26MB) cores per physical package. I think this is a fairly optimal setup. You can try removing the 6 extra cores and promoting 6 other ones to low_power_mode

@dgiero
Copy link
Author

dgiero commented Oct 12, 2017

One more thing, how can I suppress the output?
I set the output file in config.txt but I still get the terminal output.
Moreover, when I send the program to background it stop.

@psychocrypt
Copy link
Collaborator

use xmr-stak > /dev/null under linux

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants