Antonym of "off-core" should be "on-core" rather than "in-core".
Consistently use "on-core" in the overheads section.
Similarly, say "on-socket" rather than "in-socket".
Also for consistency, replace "single-CPU CAS" with "same-CPU CAS".
Also, QQz added in commit 34cc066b1d95 ("cpu: Add a QQz on table
E.1") uppercased some of related words in running text.
Lowercase them for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
---
cpu/overheads.tex | 20 ++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu/overheads.tex b/cpu/overheads.tex
index 7ae99ed6cb7b..af17b3cfdf2f 100644
--- a/cpu/overheads.tex
+++ b/cpu/overheads.tex
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ optimization.
& CAS & 7.0 & 14.6 & \\
& lock & 15.4 & 32.3 & \\
\midrule
- \multicolumn{2}{l}{In-Core}
+ \multicolumn{2}{l}{On-Core}
& & & 224 \\
& Blind CAS& 7.2 & 15.2 & \\
& CAS & 18.0 & 37.7 & \\
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ The lock operation is more expensive than CAS because it requires two
atomic operations on the lock data structure, one for acquisition and
the other for release.
-In-core operations involving interactions between the hardware threads
+On-core operations involving interactions between the hardware threads
sharing a single core are about the same cost as same-CPU operations.
This should not be too surprising, given that these two hardware threads
also share the full cache hierarchy.
@@ -253,10 +253,10 @@ failing.
The key point is that there are now two accesses to the memory location,
the load and the CAS\@.
-Thus, it is not surprising that in-core blind CAS consumes only about
-seven nanoseconds, while in-core CAS consumes about 18 nanoseconds.
+Thus, it is not surprising that on-core blind CAS consumes only about
+seven nanoseconds, while on-core CAS consumes about 18 nanoseconds.
The non-blind case's extra load does not come for free.
-That said, the overhead of these operations are similar to single-CPU
+That said, the overhead of these operations are similar to same-CPU
CAS and lock, respectively.
\QuickQuiz{
@@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ thousand clock cycles.
& CAS & 12.2 & 33.8 \\
& lock & 25.6 & 71.2 \\
\midrule
- \multicolumn{2}{l}{In-Core}
+ \multicolumn{2}{l}{On-Core}
& & \\
& Blind CAS & 12.9 & 35.8 \\
& CAS & 7.0 & 19.4 \\
@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ thousand clock cycles.
which represents a much smaller system with only 16~hardware threads.
A similar view is provided by the rows of
\cref{tab:cpu:CPU 0 View of Synchronization Mechanisms on 8-Socket System With Intel Xeon Platinum 8176 CPUs at 2.10GHz}
- down to and including the two ``Off-core'' rows.
+ down to and including the two ``Off-Core'' rows.
\begin{table}
%\rowcolors{1}{}{lightgray}
@@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ thousand clock cycles.
& CAS & 6.2 & 13.6 & \\
& lock & 13.5 & 29.6 & \\
\midrule
- \multicolumn{2}{l}{In-Core} & & & 6 \\
+ \multicolumn{2}{l}{On-Core} & & & 6 \\
& Blind CAS & 6.5 & 14.3 & \\
& CAS & 16.2 & 35.6 & \\
\midrule
@@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ thousand clock cycles.
\QuickQuizE{
\Cref{tab:cpu:Performance of Synchronization Mechanisms on 16-CPU 2.8GHz Intel X5550 (Nehalem) System}
in the answer to \QuickQuizARef{\QspeedOfLightAtoms} says that
- In-Core CAS is faster than both of Same-CPU CAS and In-Core Blind CAS\@.
+ on-core CAS is faster than both of same-CPU CAS and on-core blind CAS\@.
What is happening there?
}\QuickQuizAnswerE{
I \emph{was} surprised by the data I obtained and did a rigorous
@@ -508,7 +508,7 @@ First, there are only two CPUs within a given core and only 56 within
a given socket, compared to 448 across the system.
Second, as shown in
\cref{tab:cpu:Cache Geometry for 8-Socket System With Intel Xeon Platinum 8176 CPUs @ 2.10GHz},
-the in-core caches are quite small compared to the in-socket caches, which
+the on-core caches are quite small compared to the on-socket caches, which
are in turn quite small compared to the 1.4\,TB of memory configured on
this system.
Third, again referring to the figure, the caches are organized as
--
2.25.1
