![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Disable Windows 8/10 CPU Thread Scheduling
- Thread starter PJP
- Start date
start /affinity 1 programname.exe
Would run programname.exe and set affinity to CPU core 0 (CPU0). Changing it to 3 would set affinity to CPU0 and CPU1.
The numeric parameter is a bit mask. See here for how it maps to CPU cores: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa274569(v=SQL.80).aspx
edit: if you want to change a shortcut to launch a program with affinity, use something like this:
cmd.exe /c start "" /affinity n "path\to\program.exe"
changing n to be the bitmask of the core(s) to run it on.
Would run programname.exe and set affinity to CPU core 0 (CPU0). Changing it to 3 would set affinity to CPU0 and CPU1.
The numeric parameter is a bit mask. See here for how it maps to CPU cores: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa274569(v=SQL.80).aspx
edit: if you want to change a shortcut to launch a program with affinity, use something like this:
cmd.exe /c start "" /affinity n "path\to\program.exe"
changing n to be the bitmask of the core(s) to run it on.
Last edited:
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Sometimes there is.
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,013
What exactly are you assuming is going on that you are trying to prevent? Do you have any programs or games that are running slower than they did on 7?
If you're curious of the number of threads a process/application is using, turn on the thread column from the View menu in Task Manager.
The Windows 10 NT Kernel's process scheduler isn't going to work exactly like the one in Windows 7, so it's not really useful to expect that Windows 7 is doing it right and Windows 10 is doing it wrong.
No, but that is one of the changes. The NT kernel thread scheduler has changed over the years since the first in the early 1990s. Input from processor makers is also part of it, like the changes Intel suggested when HyperThreading CPUs became available in the XP era and changes AMD processor CPU modules got in Windows 8. Usage heuristics were likely used to tune the scheduler, and changing priorities based on power savings likely also had effects.
While it was probably a cool trick to see how many sequential cores were pegged to get a rough idea of heavy threads in use, that's not important enough to base a modern scheduler on. That was only a primitive artifact on Windows 7 and earlier Windows thread schedulers which worked that way.
While it was probably a cool trick to see how many sequential cores were pegged to get a rough idea of heavy threads in use, that's not important enough to base a modern scheduler on. That was only a primitive artifact on Windows 7 and earlier Windows thread schedulers which worked that way.
I'm still confused, is core parking good or bad?
https://superuser.com/questions/118...eal-with-hyper-threading-since-core-parking-i
https://superuser.com/questions/118...eal-with-hyper-threading-since-core-parking-i
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,387
You're still confused after 3 years?
The scheduler in Windows does a good enough job where you shouldn't have to worry about it. You won't really see any real world improvements by parking threads anymore.
There's nothing "wrong" with what Windows 10 is doing. The Windows scheduler is deceptively simple: The lowest priority task(s) always run. What happens is the application in question is getting bumped for some other task, then when it becomes the highest priority task again, it bumps the lowest priority one, which just so happens to be on a different CPU core then the task was previously running on. This is by design; otherwise system task(s) would stall applications for an unacceptable period of time.
Unless you are running an application that is very sensitive to CPU cache effects, what Windows 10 is doing is fine and arguably superior to what 7 was doing.
Unless you are running an application that is very sensitive to CPU cache effects, what Windows 10 is doing is fine and arguably superior to what 7 was doing.