Messages in this thread |  | | From | "jeff millar" <> | Subject | Re: Linux/Pro [was Re: Coding style - a non-issue] | Date | Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:41:15 -0500 |
| |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: <dalecki@evision.ag> Cc: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>; "Larry McVoy" <lm@bitmover.com>; "Davide Libenzi" <davidel@xmailserver.org>; "Andrew Morton" <akpm@zip.com.au>; "Daniel Phillips" <phillips@bonn-fries.net>; "Henning Schmiedehausen" <hps@intermeta.de>; "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>; <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Linux/Pro [was Re: Coding style - a non-issue]
> > > Question: What happens when people stick 8 threads of execution on a die with > > > a single L2 cache ? > > > > That had been already researched. Gogin bejoind 2 threads on a single > > CPU > > engine doesn't give you very much... The first step is giving about 25% > > the second only about 5%. There are papers in the IBM research magazine > > on > > The IBM papers make certain architectural assumptions. With some of the > tiny modern CPU cores its going to perfectly viable to put 4 or 8 of them > on one die. At that point cccluster still has to have cluster nodes scaling > to 8 way
Semiconductor technology will push this way because it's no longer possible to propagate a signal across the die in one clock cycle. This means pipeline interlocking becomes vastly more complicated. The simple solution puts several CPU cores on the die, each able to interlock in one clock but sharing memory over several clocks.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |