Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sethos

Turning off hyper-threading had quite an impact on my P3Dv5

Recommended Posts

Yes, Joe's right. Always best to use the application facilities before reaching for external programs. AM and display settings.

However with HT enabled and not setting the AM you would be sharing the first core over two tasks. With an AM with "01" on the end that second LP will not be available to the sim so the second task gets the next physical core and the first task gets a core to itself. Use the sim AM to do that as that's what it is intended for so the sim knows what it is doing.

Edited by SteveW

Steve Waite: Engineer at codelegend.com

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, mikeymike said:

go into process lasso got to each of my addons uncheck all off the first 2 cores ??

Exactly, with Proc Lasso you can set ii up to keep all those addon exe apps off of the first few cores, that would bring dividends.


Steve Waite: Engineer at codelegend.com

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Exactly, with Proc Lasso you can set ii up to keep all those addon exe apps off of the first few cores, that would bring dividends.

Ok, but still need an AM?

i did try 62805 and didn’t work out well for me.

what AM would you suggest Steve for. A i9 9900k

Thanks

mike

Share this post


Link to post

62805 = 11,11,01,01,01,01,01,01 uses 8 cores and 10  tasks. if you check out my post above, it's often best to leave one or two cores for the system.

Looking at No AM 8 core + HT would be 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11 = 65535 using 16 tasks, simply doing 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 65533 would move the second task to the next physical core giving maximum throughput to task zero. Look on the right (least significant binary digits are LPs 0 and 1).

However, that free LP can attract activity so also remove a couple of cores to start with 00,00,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 4093 dropping sister LPs through to 00,00,01,01,01,01,01,01 = 1365. I would guess the best solution lies in that range.

Move all your addon exe apps with Proc Lasso onto LPs such as 10,10,10,10,00,00,00,00, using at minimum two LPs per addon.


Steve Waite: Engineer at codelegend.com

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mikeymike said:

Ok, but still need an AM?

i did try 62805 and didn’t work out well for me.

what AM would you suggest Steve for. A i9 9900k

Thanks

mike

Have the same CPU and use

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=21845

Two first HT cores are deactivated and enough cores free at the back for other apps.


System: i9 9900k@4.9 - 32 GB RAM - Aorus 1080ti --- Sim/Addons: P3D v5 + ProSim737
Signature3.png

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, JoeFackel said:

Have the same CPU and use

[JOBSCHEDULER]
AffinityMask=21845

Two first HT cores are deactivated and enough cores free at the back for other apps.

Actually ALL second virtual LPs on all cores are excluded with this value (21845)

01.01.01.01.  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01

Are we on the same page with you on that?

Thanks.

PS: 16 physical cores, which CPU is that?

Edited by Dirk98
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, 21845 = 01,01,01,01,01,01,01,01.


Steve Waite: Engineer at codelegend.com

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Yes, 21845 = 01,01,01,01,01,01,01,01.

Ok, so would AM 21845 be ideal?

thanks

mike 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, SteveW said:

Yes, 21845 = 01,01,01,01,01,01,01,01.

That is correct, sorry.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, mikeymike said:

Ok, so would AM 21845 be ideal?

thanks

mike 

I don't know, but it works very well here, with all add-ons running on the 0s on the left side of that string.

Edited by Dirk98

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

I don't know, but it works very well here, with all add-ons running on the 0s on the left side of that string.

Ok, I will try it out 

thanks

mike

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dirk98 said:

Actually ALL second virtual LPs on all cores are excluded with this value (21845)

01.01.01.01.  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01  01.01.01.01

Are we on the same page with you on that?

Thanks.

PS: 16 physical cores, which CPU is that?

Oh man ... 😅

I did a test few days ago and forgot to revert to my "normal" AM setting. Usually i use 4085.


System: i9 9900k@4.9 - 32 GB RAM - Aorus 1080ti --- Sim/Addons: P3D v5 + ProSim737
Signature3.png

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JoeFackel said:

Oh man ... 😅

I did a test few days ago and forgot to revert to my "normal" AM setting. Usually i use 4085.

I did apologize for the confusion in my next post.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/18/2020 at 5:12 PM, SteveW said:

62805 = 11,11,01,01,01,01,01,01 uses 8 cores and 10  tasks. if you check out my post above, it's often best to leave one or two cores for the system.

Looking at No AM 8 core + HT would be 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11 = 65535 using 16 tasks, simply doing 11,11,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 65533 would move the second task to the next physical core giving maximum throughput to task zero. Look on the right (least significant binary digits are LPs 0 and 1).

However, that free LP can attract activity so also remove a couple of cores to start with 00,00,11,11,11,11,11,01 = 4093 dropping sister LPs through to 00,00,01,01,01,01,01,01 = 1365. I would guess the best solution lies in that range.

Move all your addon exe apps with Proc Lasso onto LPs such as 10,10,10,10,00,00,00,00, using at minimum two LPs per addon.

Hello Steve,

thanks for your good explanations about Hyperthreading and Affinitymask. What setting would you recommend for a 6-core i7-8700K (5GHz)?

If I understood your explanations correct I would go with something like 11 11 11 11 01 01 or 00 11 11 11 01 01 ?   Or should I turn off HT completely via BIOS?

Thanks for your advice!


best regards, Mathias

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/19/2020 at 4:43 PM, Ianrivaldosmith said:

@Sethos I have an 9900KS. So 8 cores and HT on makes it 16. 
I added an affinity mask to disable the HT part of the cores. It runs way way way smoother. I tested it for 24 hours using the same scenario. And the conclusion is, that the hyper threading causes stuttering, and the affinity mask to turn it off removes the stuttering. 

I have the same Intel.

Wich AM settings you use?

 


Best Regards

Martin Westphal

Intel Core i9-9900KS | ASUS ROG Maximus XI Extreme Z390 | G.Skill DDR4 32GB 3600 MHz | Asus ROG Strix GeForce RTX2080TI-OC11G

412389.png 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...