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

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: navigator.cores

From: Eli Grey <me@eligrey.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 12:36:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAASPBeMTK2idyqk06fwrhxyqxstdbmvEgbv1zxUhP0BU349sWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
We want to claim 6 in that situation. If the API claimed less than 6
on Samsung's Exynos 5 Hexa (2x A15 cores + 4x A7 cores), then the
cores will be underutilized.

We already experience varying performance per core with current
systems (especially mobile SoCs) using uniform core hardware, simply
due to the cores being at different clocks. This does not invalidate
logical processors as a measure of concurrency.

Additionally, workers have no method of assigning core affinity, so
the issue you bring up (cores of varying hardware performance) is
already a problem in the current worker model, with or without
navigator.cores.

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 5/5/14, 11:57 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't really answer my question.  What if there are six logical
>> processors available, of which four are 10x as fast as the other two? Do
>> we really want this API claiming "5"?
>
>
> Er, I meant "claiming 6", of course.
>
> -Boris
>
Received on Monday, 5 May 2014 16:36:53 UTC

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