- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 15:46:32 -0700
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, Eli Grey <me@eligrey.com>
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > 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? > That sounds reasonable. `navigator.concurrency` is not quite correct since you can have higher concurrency than the number of hardware threads.
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2014 22:46:58 UTC