Hi,
Crafty uses POSIX threads, at least according to this:
* 22.2 We are now back to using POSIX threads, since all current Linux *
* distributions now use the posix-conforming NTPL implementation *
* which should eliminate the various compatibility issues that *
* caused problems in the past.
Louis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Petch" <address@hidden>
To: "Michael Petch" <address@hidden>, "Louis Zulli" <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 4:22:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Getting gnubg to use all available cores
The other possibility is that the gthread implementation on OS/X is
buggy/limited. Gnubg is pretty much at the mercy of libgthreads to do all
the thread work. If its poorly implemented for the Leopard/Nehalem
environemnt it may have the side effect of using one physical core (and 2
threads via hyperthreading).
The chess program you use. Do you know if the code uses gthreads or does it
possibly use OS/X native threading (Cocoas NSThread or Posix threads).
On 05/08/09 2:02 PM, "Michael Petch" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I'm unsure how the architecture is deployed and how OS/X handles the
> physical cores, but it almost sounds like one Physical core is being used
> (Using Hyperthreads to run 2 threads simultaneously). I wonder if the memory
> is shared across all the cores? A friend of mine was suggesting that people
> may have to wait for Snow Lapard to come out before OS/X properly utilizes
> the Nehalem architecture (whetehr that si true or not, I don't know).
>
> Anyway, as an experiment. If you run 2 copies of Gnubg at the same time
> (using multiple threads) do you get 400% CPU usage?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>