Ryzen and the Windows Scheduler - PCPer

Ieldra

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,539
Standing ovation for PCPer, I haven't laughed this hard in a long long time

https://www.pcper.com/news/General-...roducts?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Robert Hallock, obviously prompted by Intel and his probable roommate Satya Nadella, has somehow managed to post to the official AMD gaming blog an egregious example of agreeing with the data presented by noted NVIDIA shills, PC Perspective.

"We have investigated reports alleging incorrect thread scheduling on the AMD Ryzen™ processor. Based on our findings, AMD believes that the Windows® 10 thread scheduler is operating properly for “Zen,” and we do not presently believe there is an issue with the scheduler adversely utilizing the logical and physical configurations of the architecture."
Click to expand...

This obvious attempt at distracting our omniscient detractors from sharing their indisputable wisdom that there is in an SMT issue which is totally someone else's fault. Unbelievable what people think they can get away with under the close scrutiny of those intrepid internet posters who know far better that to be fooled by such a claim.


This post brought to you by the colour green.
Click to expand...
 
They're probably getting death threats. I made a few anti-Zen posts on Reddit and I've been getting them from random trolls.
The vile cesspool known as /r/AMD is turning into a breeding ground for hatred & bullying atm. Hopefully the Reddit admins crack down.
 


This is timestamped where there saying something relevant you can forget about the rest :).

Now this is funny about when "someone" posts windows scheduler is not to blame Allyn suggests fixing the windows scheduler ;)



Entertaining that even a simple youtube video is not bringing the point across ...
 
Pieter3dnow said:


This is timestamped where there saying something relevant you can forget about the rest :).

Now this is funny about when "someone" posts windows scheduler is not to blame Allyn suggests fixing the windows scheduler ;)



Entertaining that even a simple youtube video is not bringing the point across ...
Click to expand...



it can't be fixed easily, they would have to incorporate a NUMA aware system into the scheduler, the chances of making it worse in many instances is actually higher than making it better. So its not going to solve this problem, because Windows doesn't know what the application needs are, at least it won't know soon enough to adjust for the changes in the threads. That will cause latency, and if you think the latency of the current CCX cross talk is bad, just imagine doing something in software ;).

Yeah the other solution, windows can treat Ryzen as a 4 core single chip when going into exclusive mode, which would be the best way around this problem, but ok now you have a 4 core chip, great. Not so good right.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
it can't be fixed easily, they would have to incorporate a NUMA aware system into the scheduler, the chances of making it worse in many instances is actually higher than making it better. So its not going to solve this problem, because Windows doesn't know what the application needs are, at least it won't know soon enough to adjust for the changes in the threads. That will cause latency, and if you think the latency of the current CCX cross talk is bad, just imagine doing something in software ;).

Yeah the other solution, windows can treat Ryzen as a 4 core single chip when going into exclusive mode, which would be the best way around this problem, but ok now you have a 4 core chip, great. Not so good right.
Click to expand...


Hence Windows Scheduler it can schedule things right al it needs is a little direction on how to proceed beyond 4 cores.

Sadly you missed the point where they explained what is causing cross talk , it means when data is being actively shared between multiple cores, they also explained why program as cinebench and handbrake do not have these problems. You tend to ignore solutions and focus only on problems.
Allyn said himself he was able to use cpu core affinity within the source code he written, so that is a workable solution.

NUMA is something different btw and does not have any impact on this either way.

The other solution is not a solution disabling 4 cores does not get you what you need. Threads that do need to talk to each other on 1 ccx threads that do not need to talk to other cores on the other ccx, until software adapts ...
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Hence Windows Scheduler it can schedule things right al it needs is a little direction on how to proceed beyond 4 cores.

Sadly you missed the point where they explained what is causing cross talk , it means when data is being actively shared between multiple cores, they also explained why program as cinebench and handbrake do not have these problems. You tend to ignore solutions and focus only on problems.
Allyn said himself he was able to use cpu core affinity within the source code he written, so that is a workable solution.

NUMA is something different btw and does not have any impact on this either way.

The other solution is not a solution disabling 4 cores does not get you what you need. Threads that do need to talk to each other on 1 ccx threads that do not need to talk to other cores on the other ccx, until software adapts ...
Click to expand...

Allyn talks about how the scheduler can be improved, but the scheduler is working correctly as AMD has designed an architecture that is a mix of some/hybrid and is outside the scope of the Windows scheduler, with this design AMD would had known the scheduler would need work and so should had approached Microsoft at least 6 months ago, the problem is Microsoft would also have to engage with Intel to make such large changes to the scheduler; it is a lot of work all round and I know how Microsoft's councils work (created with select 3rd parties invited to work with Microsoft).

So yes the scheduler is not at fault, AMD has a different design that works great for L1 and L2 and same CCX thread latency (but weak when crossing CCX) and probably cost effective however to work effectively in all scenarios it needs some heavy revisions to the scheduler or a lot of work from developers (notice AMD has been pushing this in news recently even before the latest AMD statement on the scheduler and getting some devs to speak about supporting-optimising for Ryzen in terms of threads).
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Pieter3dnow said:
Hence Windows Scheduler it can schedule things right al it needs is a little direction on how to proceed beyond 4 cores.

Sadly you missed the point where they explained what is causing cross talk , it means when data is being actively shared between multiple cores, they also explained why program as cinebench and handbrake do not have these problems. You tend to ignore solutions and focus only on problems.
Allyn said himself he was able to use cpu core affinity within the source code he written, so that is a workable solution.

NUMA is something different btw and does not have any impact on this either way.

The other solution is not a solution disabling 4 cores does not get you what you need. Threads that do need to talk to each other on 1 ccx threads that do not need to talk to other cores on the other ccx, until software adapts ...
Click to expand...


No I didn't miss it, dude, you don't know anything about programming, yet, you take apart what they say as it can be fixed, no he didn't say it can be fixed, it can be improved or minimized, that is it!

And he doesn't even know how much % drop in the latency will be either! What does that tell you, he doesn't know because there are too many variables, and I just listed one major down side to it, because its an obvious one if trying to get the scheduler to do something the programmer should do.
 
razor1 said:
No I didn't miss it, dude, you don't know anything about programming, yet, you take apart what they say as it can be fixed, no he didn't say it can be fixed, it can be improved or minimized, that is it!

And he doesn't even know how much % drop in the latency will be either! What does that tell you, he doesn't know because there are too many variables, and I just listed one major down side to it, because its an obvious one if trying to get the scheduler to do something the programmer should do.
Click to expand...

You don't listen to what is being told in the video my understanding (or lack of understanding) about programming has nothing to do with it. You ignore the message from the video to explain that I don't know anything about programming, which has nothing to do which what I wrote about.

If it wasn't a problem according to them why make a video about it suggesting fixes to begin with.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You don't listen to what is being told in the video my understanding (or lack of understanding) about programming has nothing to do with it. You ignore the message from the video to explain that I don't know anything about programming, which has nothing to do which what I wrote about.

If it wasn't a problem according to them why make a video about it suggesting fixes to begin with.
Click to expand...


They don't know enough to make that assumption.

Again they figured out where the problem is, but the there is no way around this.

Was going through some stuff over the weekend, yeah the reason why the scheduler fixes won't solve this is because of the different core amounts and different disabled cores of the Ryzen chips. Windows scheduler doesn't know which cores are disabled and what order they are in. Windows scheduler does not know the code and will have to translate and emulate it or replace it. Pretty much not going to be very fast when doing this.

There is no way to do in a simple manner straight forward manner without translation and emulation envolved. My understanding of the R5 and R3 chips there are multiple different configurations for the disabled cores which windows looks at them in a single order.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
They're probably getting death threats. I made a few anti-Zen posts on Reddit and I've been getting them from random trolls.
The vile cesspool known as /r/AMD is turning into a breeding ground for hatred & bullying atm. Hopefully the Reddit admins crack down.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be anti-Zen. Only post something close to reality and far from hype/fantasies and you are in their target.

CanardPC just confirmed the clocks for Naples and people at SA forums started to attack Canard with crazy and unfounded accusations.
 
juanrga said:
It doesn't have to be anti-Zen. Only post something close to reality and far from hype/fantasies and you are in their target.

CanardPC just confirmed the clocks for Naples and people at SA forums started to attack Canard with crazy and unfounded accusations.
Click to expand...

How is either of these post relevant to the topic on the scheduler and what PCPer said? If you dont like the AMD fans then why go mingle with them constantly and try to stir the pot?
 
juanrga said:
It doesn't have to be anti-Zen. Only post something close to reality and far from hype/fantasies and you are in their target.

CanardPC just confirmed the clocks for Naples and people at SA forums started to attack Canard with crazy and unfounded accusations.
Click to expand...


Ironic isn't it, they were are crazy about CanardPC's binary code in their articles because of its crazy assertion of clocks going up to 5 ghz, now they turn on them like a blind date that doesn't look like anything that was promised lol.

Back to topic though......

Scheduler fixes, won't solve this in any meaningful way. Pretty much MS would have to rebuild a new type of scheduler to even minimize the problems (and to what degree of minimization is up in the air). And that will only by for AMD CPU's, so in all likely hood that will not happen.

It has to come from developers hands to help support AMD CPU's to get the most performance out of them.
 
razor1 said:
Ironic isn't it, they were are crazy about CanardPC's binary code in their articles because of its crazy assertion of clocks going up to 5 ghz, now they turn on them like a blind date that doesn't look like anything that was promised lol.

Back to topic though......

Scheduler fixes, won't solve this in any meaningful way. Pretty much MS would have to rebuild a new type of scheduler to even minimize the problems (and to what degree of minimization is up in the air). And that will only by for AMD CPU's, so in all likely hood that will not happen.

It has to come from developers hands to help support AMD CPU's to get the most performance out of them.
Click to expand...

I see you have been chomping at the bit all week to be able to post again on the forums and to no ones surprise you came straight to the AMD forum. As much as you love this forum you should actually buy a chip and give it a whirl instead of posting your feelings about said chip.
 
Gideon said:
I see you have been chomping at the bit all week to be able to post again on the forums and to no ones surprise you came straight to the AMD forum. As much as you love this forum you should actually buy a chip and give it a whirl instead of posting your feelings about said chip.
Click to expand...



And you are one of the people that didn't understand what I stated and wanted proof wasn't it. And when given to you, you didn't know what to say because you can't understand it unless given to you in manner that is spoon feed to you.

Why not just read what is posted and learn from it, instead of attacking people?

If you guys are so against understanding the tech and its problems, why even come to a forum that is ment for technology and all the things it has to offer? I don't know doesn't make any sense does it?

Don't read reviews, don't look at what makes these things tick just buy what you want and be happy...... Don't come here and post like you know something or someone else doesn't know something when they clearly have more info on the topic and more understanding of it......

Yet people here in the AMD forum hang on to AMD's every word like its gold but when the truth comes out their words are deflections of where the true problems are.

How many times do we have to go through this, over and over again. Lets see, what to take it from the r600 and BD onward? The amount of misdirection AMD has given for their "not performing" as well as they should because they need software fixes from schedulers or drivers?
 
Last edited:
It runs just fine, the only person with a issue is you. I am enjoying my hardware, you should try it. I read the reviews and it came in pretty close to what I expected. It's a shame you didnt learn anything from that week off you got. Yet here you go on a rant and attacking me cause I pointed out what you did as soon as you could. It must be hard for you to understand that most of us are quite happy with our Ryzen chip.
 
Gideon said:
It runs just fine, the only person with a issue is you. I am enjoying my hardware, you should try it. I read the reviews and it came in pretty close to what I expected. It's a shame you didnt learn anything from that week off you got. Yet here you go on a rant and attacking me cause I pointed out what you did as soon as you could. It must be hard for you to understand that most of us are quite happy with our Ryzen chip.
Click to expand...


Then why are you in this thread?

Its a about Ryzen problems with windows scheduler, you don't seem to like it that there is a problem. OK? I'm talking about its problems, its not fixable on the windows scheduler side SIMPLE isn't it? Which I gave reasons why it can't be fixed in this manner. I posted here first was because someone quoted my post from before lol, so I replied to the quote? OK?

Guess what a little birdy told me the same law firm that sued AMD over BD, is looking into Ryzen now too. Maybe your happiness in your product will be better targeted at that law firm instead of this thread?
 
The only person that has mentioned lawsuit is you and we all laughed, reality and what is in your head are two different things. The chip has not even been out a month and your great engineering skill has allowed you to determine it has issues and they cant be fixed. Yet most of us realized if a program hates SMT you turn it off and you get a nifty boost in performance if you need it. Yet for some reason you stick a Nvidia card and Ryzen together and it performs better in Windows 7 and that is a fact. Obviously it's new architecture so software people will need to be updated on it and program for it, if that is even needed. Yet I saw a article on facebook that some site saw a huge boost in fps with a new windows 10 build. Didnt get a chance to check the article out in detail, but that would sink your whole argument.
 
Gideon said:
The only person that has mentioned lawsuit is you and we all laughed, reality and what is in your head are two different things. The chip has not even been out a month and your great engineering skill has allowed you to determine it has issues and they cant be fixed. Yet most of us realized if a program hates SMT you turn it off and you get a nifty boost in performance if you need it. Yet for some reason you stick a Nvidia card and Ryzen together and it performs better in Windows 7 and that is a fact. Obviously it's new architecture so software people will need to be updated on it and program for it, if that is even needed. Yet I saw a article on facebook that some site saw a huge boost in fps with a new windows 10 build. Didnt get a chance to check the article out in detail, but that would sink your whole argument.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with SMT. SMT performance is separate from the CCX latency. Again, you talk about something that is not pertinent to this thread. SMT performance is in the 5% or less on average change. These are similar to the HT issues Intel had initially, those will be ironed out. My argument has nothing to do with the SMT issues, as they have nothing to do with the CCX latency issue. So trying to put those together, that is not what I am saying, and have clearly delineated the difference between the two problems. This is the second time I am explaining, those two problems are separate. OK? Again you don't know the differences and trying to bunch them all together doesn't make them one and the same.

And about the lawsuit, Well you should call up the law firm and find out, the only reason I heard about it is because of higher ups in OEM's are talking about the BD lawsuit and how they will benefit from it and friends of mine told me they were asked by the law firm if Ryzen is in the same boat, because the BD lawsuit has much to do with OEM's as do end users, Ryzen is being scrutinized the same way.

You guys can laugh and deflect and put your head in the sand as much as you want it doesn't matter to me, but posting about things you don't understand and making things up like what you just did because of a random poster who probably just stumbled on to something else doesn't do anyone any good.
 
Last edited:
You know software can be made to lock it to one CCX, in fact there is a guy in the forum that is working on a program to do that. It's not the big deal you and Shintai and Juranga think it is.
 
Gideon said:
You know software can be made to lock it to one CCX, in fact there is a guy in the forum that is working on a program to do that. It's not the big deal you and Shintai and Juranga think it is.
Click to expand...

It can and it defeats the purpose of the 8 cores right? I stated this on March 5th or 4th or sometime around that time as well might want to look back at my posts. I have stated this more than once too. This will be the only real solution that will give back 100% of Ryzen's full performance at least as a 4 core chip which is all that is needed for now.

But this will get hairy with the 6 core and 4 core parts that are cut down from the 8 core parts. Cause they will function like a 3 core or 2 core part from what I understand, as the cores that are being disabled on those chips are not all on the same CCX.
 
razor1 said:
It can and it defeats the purpose of the 8 cores right? I stated this on March 5th or 4th or sometime around that time as well might want to look back at my posts. I have stated this more than once too. This will be the only real solution that will give back 100% of Ryzen's full performance at least as a 4 core chip which is all that is needed for now.

But this will get hairy with the 6 core and 4 core parts that are cut down from the 8 core parts. Cause they will function like a 3 core or 2 core part from what I understand, as the cores that are being disabled on those chips are not all on the same CCX.
Click to expand...

You should read up on it before trying to comment on it. https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-ryzen-game-performance-fix.1926435/

One of things he is working on is not allowing CCX switching no matter how many threads.
 
Gideon said:
You should read up on it before trying to comment on it. https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-ryzen-game-performance-fix.1926435/

One of things he is working on is not allowing CCX switching no matter how many threads.
Click to expand...

That won't happen, he will get erratic results. The CCX issue is complicated and can't be done outside of the actual application. Having a 3rd party solution, just makes the problem worse in most cases or all cases for that matter.

This isn't like shader replacement which is kinda what SvenBent is kinda talking about where partially compiled code is fully compiled at run time and can be replaced when certain instructions are noticed. This is compiled code that needs to be read first then translated and replaced. A big difference.

Locking down the CCX's to specific threads will cause havoc in most multi threaded code in games because games relay on main threads that branch out for the needs of the graphics portion. And that does not work well if the threads are locked to specific cores since if one thread needs info from a portion of that same thread, whats going to happen? A stall of the core right? Then what happens to the other cores that might need that information too?

You are stuck up shits creak at that point.

GPU's are high parallel, but they need the CPU to keep feeding them, if the CPU is artificially bound then the GPU will get bound too even though it sent the info it needs and when it needs that info back.

This is also why we see some multithreaded games not having as much problems as others because their main threads are set up differently and the performance of the engine is bound to main thread

PS the rest of what he stated about SMT, is pretty much what I was getting at, SMT performance can be improved, but application dependent too. And that has nothing to do with the CCX issues.
 
Last edited:
C7Mr7sKXgAAVBsW.jpg
 
Really going to try that? Intel's ring bus has a data speed of over 100 gb/s, it doesn't slow it down unless in severe cases but other parts of the CPU will get bogged down before that happens too.

Not to mention the structure of Intel's ring bus, can hide the 16 cycle latency anyways.....
 
Still a fact that it adds quite a bit of latency.. facts are facts. I also found the meme to be hilarious.
 
Gideon said:
How is either of these post relevant to the topic on the scheduler and what PCPer said?
Click to expand...

The posts are completely relevant and explain why fanboys attacked PcPer. In case you have not noticed this thread is about the sarcastic vengeance that PcPer published against all those weird guys that attacked and insulted them. The original article mentioned in the OP is down but you can find a copy here

http://web.archive.org/web/20170313...-Sheckels-Renews-Contract-Defame-Own-Products
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
It can and it defeats the purpose of the 8 cores right? I stated this on March 5th or 4th or sometime around that time as well might want to look back at my posts. I have stated this more than once too. This will be the only real solution that will give back 100% of Ryzen's full performance at least as a 4 core chip which is all that is needed for now.

But this will get hairy with the 6 core and 4 core parts that are cut down from the 8 core parts. Cause they will function like a 3 core or 2 core part from what I understand, as the cores that are being disabled on those chips are not all on the same CCX.
Click to expand...

Rofl I though the advantage of buying the Ryzen quadcores was specifically for a contiguous/single CCX.

Definitely even less desirable if that's not the case...
 
juanrga said:
The posts are completely relevant and explain why fanboys attacked PcPer. In case you have not noticed this thread is about the sarcastic vengeance that PcPer published against all those weird guys that attacked and insulted them. The original article is down but you can find a copy here
Click to expand...

And PCper in their own wisdom suggest at the end that there are things that can be changed in the scheduler. It is not about fanboys it is about how you make a video of a problem that does not exist then suggest (for the problem that does not exist) a solution.
 
Mav451 said:
Rofl I though the advantage of buying the Ryzen quadcores was specifically for a contiguous/single CCX.

Definitely even less desirable if that's not the case...
Click to expand...

AMD already confirmed that the quads are 2+2.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
And PCper in their own wisdom suggest at the end that there are things that can be changed in the scheduler. It is not about fanboys it is about how you make a video of a problem that does not exist then suggest (for the problem that does not exist) a solution.
Click to expand...

Of course that some things can be changed, but the improvements will be minimal (low single digit percent average), as PcPER, computerbase.de and the own AMD agree. That is the reason why the title of the PcPer article on the scheduler finished with "No Silver Bullet". A new W10 scheduler is not the "magic fix" that some people in forums has been promising.
 
Last edited:
juanrga said:
Of course that some things can be changed, but the improvements will be minimal (low single digit percent average), as PcPER, computerbase.de and the own AMD agree. That is the reason why the title of the PcPer article on the scheduler finished with "No Silver Bullet". A new W10 scheduler is not the "magic fix" that some people in forums has been promising.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone promise anything.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
I haven't seen anyone promise anything.
Click to expand...

With AMD saying there is no problem with Windows 10 scheduler that should be enough to say there will be no fix on that side of things. We know AMD was talking with Microsoft as Microsoft stated they are looking at the problem prior to AMD announcing the problem isn't on Windows side of things. So MS probably told AMD there is no problem. We can tell there is no problem on the scheduler side since everything is coming from the performance of the fabric, 20 gb/s will cause latency issues You have to understand this is like 100 cycles to get through that fabric! The only way around this is to stop that from happening. So eliminate the need for using the fabric as a communication interface.

Microsoft is not in the habit of changing their software to meet hardware needs when the problem is not on their end.

Spirit_Retro said:
Seems like Zendozer to me....
Click to expand...

Its nothing to that degree.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
That is a really odd statement when there is no problem ?
Click to expand...


There is a problem its on AMD's end and how THEIR infinity fabric works. Just imagine how their cut down 8 core parts are going to perform? Are they going to be worse that Intel's 2 core performance in games? Possibly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top