By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - So what comes after parallel processing?

dib8rman on 08 December 2008

Biological processing, using submolecular unilatteral identification streams to generate molecular composition of processes.

^_^



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Around the Network
MisterBlonde on 08 December 2008

@alephnull

Sounds good. I knew that the compiler will inine stuff for you. I agree that hand coded assembly by knowledgeable assembly programmers is often times better than the assembly a compiler will generate. It also sounds like you were assuming PowerPC and I X86 when we were talking about arg passing, and I think that is how we got off topic.

For the record in my original post I never brought up how args are passed. I simply was stating that during a synchronous function call the caller HAS to wait to the callee returns. You said for the most part that was wrong and stated that the reason why were because args aren't pushed on to the stack even though I never mentioned it.



alephnull on 08 December 2008
dib8rman said:
Biological processing, using submolecular unilatteral identification streams to generate molecular composition of processes.

^_^

 

Heh, you know it's not the 90s anymore, right? Quantum computing is the new biocomputing :P



alephnull on 08 December 2008
MisterBlonde said:
@alephnull

Sounds good. I knew that the compiler will inine stuff for you. I agree that hand coded assembly by knowledgeable assembly programmers is often times better than the assembly a compiler will generate. It also sounds like you were assuming PowerPC and I X86 when we were talking about arg passing, and I think that is how we got off topic.

For the record in my original post I never brought up how args are passed. I simply was stating that during a synchronous function call the caller HAS to wait to the callee returns. You said for the most part that was wrong and stated that the reason why were because args aren't pushed on to the stack even though I never mentioned it.

 

I do agree with the statement about function calls. I apologize if I am missing or misinterpreting something.



kn on 08 December 2008

I think the next evolution is probably perpendicular processing.



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

Around the Network
alephnull on 08 December 2008


jlauro said:

This idea will not work with only a low number of cpus, and it also will not work well with multiple physical cpus, as it does assume uniform memory access (which is not easily done with a large number of cores without using a cross-bar switch), and you were probably working with a non uniform memory architecture, or else a small number of processors. Unless you put everything on one chip, including enough memory (4k minimum per thread, 64+k better) to handle a large number of threads, and enough cores, you just will run out of memory bandwidth...

Well if you believe intel then Larrabee will have UMA with a ring-bus and the CBE can actually be put in cache-coherence mode it's just that nobody does because performance takes a huge hit. I would agree though, that it is ideally done with a cross-bar.

I'm not going to touch the QoS stuff with a ten-foot pole. It's been a few years now but at the time actual bounds were not so hot and involved heaps of queueing theory. Although it depends are what you are trying to maximise throughput, fairness, or meeting deadlines.