• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Multi-Cores and crashing

legocitytruck

Senior member
Once a multiple core machine is loaded and fully operational, if a program becomes unstable, is it possible for one processor core to be consumed by the crash, and you can still use the other cores for computing and possibly saving and restarting the computer?
 
That's not really how the multi-core processors in computers today work. For the most part, it's like a factory that spreads the work around in the factory line to make a final product. When a bad product is created (major crash), you'll need to clear out the factory (reboot) before you can continue the factory. When an app crashes and it doesn't take down the OS, you can continue to work once you shut down the offending app. Pretty much the same for single and multiple cores.
 
Originally posted by: legocitytruck
Once a multiple core machine is loaded and fully operational, if a program becomes unstable, is it possible for one processor core to be consumed by the crash, and you can still use the other cores for computing and possibly saving and restarting the computer?

It's funny you should phrase it this way...when I initially got my quad-core this is exactly the first area that it provided me my first benefits. At the time I had a program that like to simply flake out every now and then and load a core to 100% in such a way that made the rest of the computer simply unusable. Getting task manager open and killing the errant thread was nearly impossible, I mean it would take a good half-hour to do that.

With my quad-core when the program crashed/flipped out the rest of the system remained as responsive as ever. Pop open task manager, kill the thread, relaunch the program, restart the batch job, all done in 3 seconds. Beautiful.

So my answer to your question would be "yeah, hell yeah, it can work exactly like that".
 
Reminds me of a problem my friend was having that I just diagnosed. Apparently, the built-in driver in Windows XP for USB headsets has a bug, that causes one CPU core to take up nearly 100% Kernel CPU time. Thus, it eats one core of a dual-core. Unfortunately for my friend, he only has a P4 with Hyperthreading, so it was eating up all his CPU time, making youtube skip, and causes visible anomolies when moving windows around.

If anyone knows of where to get updated USB headset drivers for XP, PM me.
 
Back
Top