Home/ Questions/Q 6961755
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-27T15:34:19+00:00

Say I run a simple single-threaded process like the one below: public class SirCountALot

  • 0

Say I run a simple single-threaded process like the one below:

public class SirCountALot {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int count = 0;
        while (true) {
            count++;
        }
    }
}

(This is Java because that’s what I’m familiar with, but I suspect it doesn’t really matter)

I have an i7 processor (4 cores, or 8 counting hyperthreading), and I’m running Windows 7 64-bit so I fired up Sysinternals Process Explorer to look at the CPU usage, and as expected I see it is using around 20% of all available CPU.

Graph showing 20% CPU usage across all cores

But when I toggle the option to show 1 graph per CPU, I see that instead of 1 of the 4 “cores” being used, the CPU usage is spread all over the cores:

Graph showing erratic CPU usage on each core totaling around 20% usage

Instead what I would expect is 1 core maxed out, but this only happens when I set the affinity for the process to a single core.

Graph showing most of recent CPU usage to be confined to first core

Why is the workload split over the separate cores? Wouldn’t splitting the workload over several cores mess with the caching or incur other performance penalties?

Is it for the simple reason of preventing overheating of one core? Or is there some deeper reason?

Edit: I’m aware that the operating system is responsible for the scheduling, but I want to know why it “bothers”. Surely from a naive viewpoint, sticking a (mostly*) single-threaded process to 1 core is the simpler & more efficient way to go?

*I say mostly single-threaded because there’s multiple theads here, but only 2 of them are doing anything:

Screenshot showing number of threads from Eclipse
Screenshot showing number of threads in Process Explorer process properties

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    The OS is responsible for scheduling. It is free to stop a thread and start it again on another CPU. It will do this even if there is nothing else the machine is doing.

    The process is moved around the CPUs because the OS doesn’t assume there is any reason to continue running the thread on the same CPU each time.

    For this reason I have written a library for lock threads to a CPU so it won’t move around and won’t be interrupted by other threads. This reduces latency and improve throughput but does tire up a CPU for that thread. This works for Linux, perhaps you can adapt it for Windows. https://github.com/peter-lawrey/Java-Thread-Affinity/wiki/Getting-started

    • 0