Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Jan 2007 02:29:22 -0800
On Jan 30, 5:59 pm, Paul Wallich <p...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The big question is whether inefficient use of cores is a bad thing.
It's a bad thing because it's making poor use of expensive silicon.
The only valid (as opposed to marketing) reason to out more cores on a
chip is that it is (or is hoped to be) the best way of getting more
performance out of the resources (silicon in other words) available.
If the cores are starving for memory then a better use of the
resources would be to deal with that problem.
(This is similar to the reason why processors typically don't
speculatively execute both sides of a branch: the maximum possible
utilization of that is 50%, so it's generally better to predict and
then speculatively execute the branch you predict to be taken, which
can do much better than 50% on typical code.)
--tim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Paul Wallich
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Rob Warnock
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- References:
- Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: George Neuner
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Marcus Breiing
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: John Thingstad
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Paul Wallich
- Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Prev by Date: Re: All Your GUIs Are Belong to Us (Die, McCLIM! Die!!)
- Next by Date: Re: Replacing Xaml with Lisp on Windows Vista
- Previous by thread: Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Next by thread: Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|