Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
"Processor groups" is not a hack - it's an elegant solution to the problem of how to schedule large numbers of cores that are bigger than the largest integer mask supported by a processor.


Links? With supporting evidence that processor groups is the problem?


Links?
Your own link stated that Microsoft hacked.


Example that I find now:



AMD's official line is that there's no 48-core Threadripper because most people buy the top or the "sweet spot" part.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
And did I attest to every line in that link?

No. I added a link that was relevant - even though I wouldn't have chosen the same words.
Well, if people are disabling cores or HT it is obviously not the best solution.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
When has OSX/MacOS ever run (officially) on a machine with more than 64 cores (virtual or not)? That's a mountain Apple has not yet scaled.
What I am seeing is a maximum of 32 hardware threads per process.

EDIT: now I find nothing. So I imagine people are not hitting a wall.
 
Last edited:

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
Maybe Apple could get a special batch of 48-core Threadrippers then.

But I don't think it really fits them.
 
Last edited:

Anarchy99

macrumors 65816
Dec 13, 2003
1,041
1,033
CA
What problem? And if it's a problem, can you say the Apple OSX doesn't have the same problem?

(And since Apple OSX has never supported 64 logical cores - how would you know?)
yes, you can definitively say OSX has the same problem.
you can look at the kernel and see it, OSX limit is @64 (cores+threads)
one of many of the discussions on it

so many of the Hackintosh communities are talking about whether it's patchable
and the AMD OSX community, in particular, seems to be most affected or will be because a 3970x or 2990wx is the best you can use at the moment and within next few weeks the 3990x comes out which is a consumer part rather than server thus more mainstream.

so while the CPU will work you'll lose out on its full potential when Hackintoshing at least until a successful patch by one of the communities or Apple themselves.

its actually changed my next Hackintosh build plans I was excited for a top-end threadripper system since AMDs can now use thunderbolt but thats its own offtopic tangent.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
yes, you can definitively say OSX has the same problem.
you can look at the kernel and see it, OSX limit is @64 (cores+threads)
one of many of the discussions on it

so many of the Hackintosh communities are talking about whether it's patchable
and the AMD OSX community, in particular, seems to be most affected or will be because a 3970x or 2990wx is the best you can use at the moment and within next few weeks the 3990x comes out which is a consumer part rather than server thus more mainstream.

so while the CPU will work you'll lose out on its full potential when Hackintoshing at least until a successful patch by one of the communities or Apple themselves.

its actually changed my next Hackintosh build plans I was excited for a top-end threadripper system since AMDs can now use thunderbolt but thats its own offtopic tangent.
But Apple does not sell machines with more than 64 threads.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,674
The Peninsula

For those interested in how big trouble Intel is.
Nice spin on an IT reorganization. :rolleyes: Not related to chips.

Intel Corp. is laying off hundreds of information technology administrators this week, according to The Oregonian. These 2019 layoffs may be the tech giant’s most substantial cutbacks since 2016, when it cut about 12,000 jobs in an effort to save $1.4 billion annually.

The layoffs may have more to do with how the corporation plans to manage internal technical systems than simply cutting costs, according to sources that spoke with The Oregonian
 
Last edited:

ZombiePhysicist

macrumors 65816
May 22, 2014
1,236
842
yes, you can definitively say OSX has the same problem.
you can look at the kernel and see it, OSX limit is @64 (cores+threads)
one of many of the discussions on it

so many of the Hackintosh communities are talking about whether it's patchable
and the AMD OSX community, in particular, seems to be most affected or will be because a 3970x or 2990wx is the best you can use at the moment and within next few weeks the 3990x comes out which is a consumer part rather than server thus more mainstream.

so while the CPU will work you'll lose out on its full potential when Hackintoshing at least until a successful patch by one of the communities or Apple themselves.

its actually changed my next Hackintosh build plans I was excited for a top-end threadripper system since AMDs can now use thunderbolt but thats its own offtopic tangent.

This is going back quite a while, but I recall back in the NeXT days, there was some academic work done with kernels (this was during the micro vs mega kernel debates) and that core efficiency goes way down after 32 cores. Namely, for work that you can do in parallel, the overhead from the OS scheduler and other things, basically give you a near linear add per core. 4 cores almost 2x the throughput of 2cores. But at around 32 cores, scheduling got less efficient and I don't remember the reasoning. But basically you start getting only say 70% increment for each core from 32 cores to say 48 cores. And then efficiency drops further, say down to 50% per added core. And basically you hit the wall of diminishing returns somewhere around 128 or 256 or something like that, where effectively, the management of the extra cores overwhelms any extra processing brought about why the extra cores.

So that was back probably around the 90s and I'm sure research has improved this from the 32 core number, but I bet you this overhead still will come into play, and some number (maybe now it's 64 cores instead of 32) you start losing efficiency in a serious way. Or, perhaps, with the advent of 64bit computing, maybe the limitations are not there at all at this point. I don't know, but it was a very real thing back then that folks were trying to solve.

And looks like this is still a thing but it looks like you start loosing efficiency somewhere around 128 cores these days:

Screen Shot 2020-01-17 at 11.23.41 AM.png
 

Anarchy99

macrumors 65816
Dec 13, 2003
1,041
1,033
CA
But Apple does not sell machines with more than 64 threads.
what they currently sell is irrelevant to what the OS can currently support.

it can be their excuse as to why they have the limitation, but regardless of their reasoning it doesn't change the fact that currently the limitation is there.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
what they currently sell is irrelevant to what the OS can currently support.

it can be their excuse as to why they have the limitation, but regardless of their reasoning it doesn't change the fact that currently the limitation is there.
The limitation does not matter. It does not apply to Macs.
 

Anarchy99

macrumors 65816
Dec 13, 2003
1,041
1,033
CA
The limitation does not matter. It does not apply to Macs.
it does matter because until it changes it applies to anyone using the OS, from hackintosh people now, to users of highend VMs or even Apple in the future unless they update the limitation.

just because you dont care about something deosnt mean it doesnt exist.

i wont claim its a common issue/concern, but a issue is still an issue even if it doesn't affect you personally or even the majority.
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
it does matter because until it changes it applies to anyone using the OS, from hackintosh people now, to users of highend VMs or even Apple in the future unless they update the limitation.

just because you dont care about something deosnt mean it doesnt exist.

i wont claim its a common issue/concern, but a issue is still an issue even if it doesn't affect you personally or even the majority.
You're supposed to use macOS only on a Mac.

If Apple releases a limited machine, then you can complain.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,674
The Peninsula
But Apple does not sell machines with more than 64 threads.
Which is why they're not ****ing themselves over the AMD Threadripper 3 - they can't use the higher core counts. The 28C/56T Xeon is very close to the limit of what Apple OSX can use.

Apple OSX can't support a 64C/128T processor. Windows and Linux can.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
Which is why they're not ****ing themselves over the AMD Threadripper 3 - they can't use the higher core counts. The 28C/56T Xeon is very close to the limit of what Apple OSX can use.

Apple OSX can't support a 64C/128T processor. Windows and Linux can.
Doesn't OSX lack an affinity API? It would just be an internal change.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,674
The Peninsula
Doesn't OSX lack an affinity API? It would just be an internal change.
It's a massive change to the scheduler, one of the most performance critical components of the OS.

And no, it would not be "just be an internal change" - the affinity APIs need to change, and applications may need to be modified to use the new APIs. (Applications with a couple of dozen compute threads shouldn't need to change, but if one wants to support a 64C/128T CPU you will need to modify the app.)

Windows has supported processor groups for more than 10 years. How long do you think it will take Apple to get a stable implementation?
 

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,970
It's a massive change to the scheduler, one of the most performance critical components of the OS.

And no, it would not be "just be an internal change" - the affinity APIs need to change, and applications may need to be modified to use the new APIs. (Applications with a couple of dozen compute threads shouldn't need to change, but if one wants to support a 64C/128T CPU you will need to modify the app.)

Windows has supported processor groups for more than 10 years. How long do you think it will take Apple to get a stable implementation?
I imagine Apple has already programmed a new scheduler.

Why would you need to reprogram if they only make one socket Intel machines?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: askunk

koyoot

macrumors 603
Jun 5, 2012
5,751
1,771
Nice spin on an IT reorganization. :rolleyes: Not related to chips.
Those layoffs are caused by something.

For sure not because Intel delivered ground breaking, safe and secure, efficient, new products, over past ... 4 years?

Which is why they're not ****ing themselves over the AMD Threadripper 3 - they can't use the higher core counts. The 28C/56T Xeon is very close to the limit of what Apple OSX can use.

Apple OSX can't support a 64C/128T processor. Windows and Linux can.
I would like to see a Hackintosh on 32 core, or higher core count Threadripper, how it behaves.

P.S. Linux's scheduler is the main reason why I started liking this system more and more, over past few weeks, despite complete migration to this OS on all of my machines some time ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fendersrule

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,674
The Peninsula
Those layoffs are caused by something.
Have you heard of this thing called "the cloud".

Companies all over the globe are moving from in-house (or "on prem") IT infrastructure to cloud-based infrastructure, and shrinking their in-house IT departments.

That's all this is, and you are being dishonest in trying to imply that Intel joining the movement of IT operations to the cloud means something sinister. Dishonest.

I would like to see a Hackintosh on 32 core, or higher core count Threadripper, how it behaves.
Did you look at the links earlier? The answer to your question is "kernel panic". (Actually, 32 core is OK - higher is kernel panic.)
 

Anarchy99

macrumors 65816
Dec 13, 2003
1,041
1,033
CA
You're supposed to use macOS only on a Mac.
I'm supposed to use the hardware and or software I have a legal right to use in any way i please as long as I don't violate one of my countries laws.
running my legally purchased OS on a Hackintosh, VM or my real Macs are all just equally as legal.

sure depending on the VM and in the case of the hackintosh it's against the EULA that i never agreed too but even if I did in the majority of districts and countries is not a legal document or enforceable by law let alone a binding contract.
heck many EULA's in themselves contain illegal stipulations.

so can't really say what "I'm" supposed to do.
you can only speak for yourself.


If Apple releases a limited machine, then you can complain.
First off you don't have the right to tell me what I can or cannot complain about, just as I don't have the right to tell you what you can or cannot complain about.
but even if I accepted your premise, they did release several limited machines which is why people are complaining they're not using threadrippers right now :p


so far nothing I have said is inaccurate, the original contention that I correctly rebutted was Aidenshaw not recognizing that this was an OS problem, who then asks if it is a problem how would you know.

I then responded that it's a problem for anyone who wants to go past the imposed limit which you can currently do with existing hardware either via VM or Hackintosh.
then I provided proof to how I could know that it's been a problem despite Apple's lacking hardware offerings to prove the limitation.

the points I've made haven't been disproven all you've given is your irrelevant opinions as to why my opinions shouldn't matter.
to that, I say it doesn't matter what your opinions or my opinions are for that matter.

I was just stating facts and the facts are the OS has that core/thread limit and it sucks for people it effects and people it doesn't won't care till it does affect them.


the reason those facts are facts is that they don't change whether we're talking right now Apple's best Mac Pro has 28 cores whereas a year ago the best one they offered had 12.

because its an OS limitation, as I previously pointed out Apple's justification for not updating the Kernel to support more could be because of their officially supported hardware but that's irrelevant to the fact that the current limit is the current limit. (until they change it or someone else modifies it successfully)

it seems like you just want a fight for fight's sake and that's just not worth my time because whether purposefully or not your missing the point.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.