Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:46:32 -0700
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:07:42 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:33:21 -0700, MooseFET <kensmith@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sep 15, 11:09 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[....]
architecture. In a few years we'll have, say, 1024 processors on aI think that the number of virtual cores will grow faster than the
chip, and something new will be required to manage them. It will be a
thousand times simpler and more reliable than Windows.
number fo real cores. With extra register banks and a bit of clever
design, a single ALU can look like two slightly slower ones.
I expect to see multicore machines with less actual floating point
ALUs than actual integer ALUs.
Sounds sort of like Sun's Niagra chips, which have (IIRC) 8 cores, each
with 4 threads, but only a few floating point units. For things like
web serving, it's ideal.
Yup. Low-horsepower tasks can just be a thread on a multithread core,
and many little tasks don't need a dedicated floating-point unit.
My point/fantasy is that OS design should change radically if many,
many real or virtual CPUs are available. One CPU would be the manager,
and every task, process, or driver could have its own, totally
confined and protected, CPU, and there would be no context switching
ever, and few interrupts in fact.
That's not going to work for Linux, anyway - there is a utility thread
spawned per cpu at the moment (work is underway to avoid this, because
it is a bit of a pain when you have thousands of cpus in one box).
However, there is no point in having a cpu (or even a virtual cpu)
dedicated to each task. Many sorts of tasks spend a lot of time
sleeping while waiting for other events - a cpu in this state is a waste
of resources.
Only if you think of a CPU as a valuable resource. As silicon shrinks,
a CPU becomes a minor bit of real estate. It makes sense to use it
when there's something to do, and put it to sleep when there's not.
Lots of power gets saved by not doing context switches.
My point is that large numbers of CPU cores *will* become common and
cheap, and we need a new type of OS to take advantage of this new
reality. Done right, it could be simple and astoundingly secure and
reliable.
I'd be happy to waste a little silicon if I could have an OS that
doesn't crash and that doesn't go to sleep for seconds at a time for
no obvious reason.
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: David Brown
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- References:
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: Nobody
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: krw
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: Nobody
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: krw
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: Nobody
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: MooseFET
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: John Larkin
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: MooseFET
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: John Larkin
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- From: David Brown
- Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- Prev by Date: Re: A must to watch for all new industrial engineers!
- Next by Date: Re: Help on Tesla Coil design
- Previous by thread: Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- Next by thread: Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|