- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 06:49:42 -0700
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Eli Grey <me@eligrey.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>wrote: > On May 4, 2014, at 7:45, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Eli Grey <me@eligrey.com> wrote: > > > >> The proposal specifically states using logical cores, which handles > >> all of the CPUs you mentioned properly. > >> > >> Intel CPUs with hyperthreading enabled report logical cores as double > >> the hardware cores. Depending on the version and configuration of the > >> Samsung Exynos Octa big.LITTLE CPUs, you will get either 4 logical > >> cores (only one cluster can run at a time) or 8 logical cores > >> (big.LITTLE MP, available in Exynos 5420 or later only). > >> > > > > Great! > > Make sure this is captured when it is put in a specification. > > Otherwise the subtlety between an actual and a logical core might get > lost. > > Shouldn't this also be captured in the API's name? > Maybe navigator.hardwareConcurrency as a nod to the C++11 name? Adam
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2014 13:50:39 UTC