What happened to computer architecture (and comp.arch?)
|
Prev: VMWare tools killed my Mac OS X ?
Next: Software vs hardware floating-point [was Re: What happened ...]
From: Robert Myers on 7 Sep 2009 15:12 On Sep 6, 9:44 pm, Mayan Moudgill <ma...(a)bestweb.net> wrote: > I've been reading comp.arch off and on for more than 20 years now. In > the past few years the SNR has deteriorated considerably, and I was > wondering why. I'm glad you've revived the tradition of fussing about the SNR. Such complaints have historically been an important contributor to the volume. > Maybe people who used to post at comp.arch are on other > formums? Some are, yes. > Maybe its that I've gotten a little harder to impress? Then I > thought about the quality of most papers at ISCA and Micro, the fact > that both EDF and MPF have gone away, and I think the rot is not > confined to just comp.arch. > > So, whats going on? I'm sure part of it is that the latest generation of > architects is talking at other sites. > > However, equally important is that there are far fewer of them. The > number of companies designing processors has gone down and there are > fewer startups doing processors. So, less architects. > > Within those processors there is less architecture (or micro > architecture) being done; instead, the imperative that clock cycle has > to be driven down leaves less levels of logic per cycle, which in turn > means that the "architecture" has to be simpler. So, less to talk about. > > There is less low-hanging fruit around; most of the simpler and > obviously beneficial ideas are known, and most other ideas are more > complex and harder to explain/utilize. > > A larger number of decisions are being driven by the details of the > process, libraries and circuit families. This stuff is less accessible > to a non-practitioner, and probably propietary to boot. > > A lot of the architecture that is being done is application-specific. > Consequently, its probably more apt to be discussed in > comp.<application> than comp.arch. A lot of the trade-offs will make > sense only in that context. > > Basically, I think the field has gotten more complicated and less > accessible to the casual reader (or even the gifted well read amateur). > The knowledge required of a computer architect have increased to the > point that its probably impossible to acquire even a *basic* grounding > in computer architecture outside of actually working in the field > developing a processor or _possibly_ studying with one of a few PhD > programs. The field has gotten to the point where it _may_ require > architects to specialize in different application areas; a lot of the > skills transfer, but it still requires retraining to move from, say, > general-purpose processors to GPU design. > I don't know about computer architecture, but the general feeling in physics has always been that almost no one (except the speaker and his small circle of peers, of course) is smart enough to do physics, and you seem to be echoing that unattractive sentiment here. Computer architecture, like physics, has matured greatly since the go- go days. Biology is the place to be right now. One way of getting around the proprietary problem has been to talk about historical architectures and decisions that are no longer of great competitive significance. I still see those discussions as valuable, and this is a much better place to have them than afc. Robert Myers.
From: vandys on 7 Sep 2009 14:30 Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(a)harrekilde.dk> wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised if we see a minor revival in processor design > centered around low power consumption and "acceptable" performance > (who needs a multi-core-multi-GHz processor to show webpages, edit > text and do a bit of email/blogging/twitter?). And don't forget FPGAs. The lines get fuzzy when anybody who can afford a couple grand can design in a space previously reserved for "architects" at a CPU vendor. Andy Valencia
From: Robert Myers on 7 Sep 2009 14:37 On Sep 7, 1:44 pm, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <k...(a)harrekilde.dk> wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised if we see a minor revival in processor design > centered around low power consumption and "acceptable" performance What a *very* odd comment, as the shift of design emphasis and acccompanying frenetic activity has been apparent for years. Robert.
From: Kai Harrekilde-Petersen on 7 Sep 2009 15:08 Robert Myers <rbmyersusa(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Sep 7, 1:44�pm, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <k...(a)harrekilde.dk> wrote: > >> I wouldn't be surprised if we see a minor revival in processor design >> centered around low power consumption and "acceptable" performance > > What a *very* odd comment, as the shift of design emphasis and > acccompanying frenetic activity has been apparent for years. And they use the lowered power envelope to stuff even more idle cores onto the die. Not exactly forward progress in my book (although Nick might approve of getting more cores). It's all a matter of perspective and perception. Kai -- Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>
From: Mayan Moudgill on 6 Sep 2009 21:44
I've been reading comp.arch off and on for more than 20 years now. In the past few years the SNR has deteriorated considerably, and I was wondering why. Maybe people who used to post at comp.arch are on other formums? Maybe its that I've gotten a little harder to impress? Then I thought about the quality of most papers at ISCA and Micro, the fact that both EDF and MPF have gone away, and I think the rot is not confined to just comp.arch. So, whats going on? I'm sure part of it is that the latest generation of architects is talking at other sites. However, equally important is that there are far fewer of them. The number of companies designing processors has gone down and there are fewer startups doing processors. So, less architects. Within those processors there is less architecture (or micro architecture) being done; instead, the imperative that clock cycle has to be driven down leaves less levels of logic per cycle, which in turn means that the "architecture" has to be simpler. So, less to talk about. There is less low-hanging fruit around; most of the simpler and obviously beneficial ideas are known, and most other ideas are more complex and harder to explain/utilize. A larger number of decisions are being driven by the details of the process, libraries and circuit families. This stuff is less accessible to a non-practitioner, and probably propietary to boot. A lot of the architecture that is being done is application-specific. Consequently, its probably more apt to be discussed in comp.<application> than comp.arch. A lot of the trade-offs will make sense only in that context. Basically, I think the field has gotten more complicated and less accessible to the casual reader (or even the gifted well read amateur). The knowledge required of a computer architect have increased to the point that its probably impossible to acquire even a *basic* grounding in computer architecture outside of actually working in the field developing a processor or _possibly_ studying with one of a few PhD programs. The field has gotten to the point where it _may_ require architects to specialize in different application areas; a lot of the skills transfer, but it still requires retraining to move from, say, general-purpose processors to GPU design. I look around and see a handful of guys posting who've actually been doing computer architecture. But its a shrinking pool.... Ah, well - I guess I can always go hang out at alt.folklore.computers. |