W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: navigator.cores

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 15:46:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAeTgoS+12Ha+OX8r+PvzF6b1j0LvMNFYRXewu7RDgNGw@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:20 UTC