[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Transputer Development System, 2006? (aka Sony PS/3 runs multi-core Linux)
Hi all,
There are a couple of links in the Transterpreter Wiki about Intel's
surging forward with more and more cores, one of which is a bit more
critical of Intel's approach. My concern is that we are going to see a
new processor race, with GHz replaced by cores, and no concern over
whether they can be used correctly (hence my earlier post).
One thing I have noticed, being a game player, is an emergence of games
that say they are "optimised" to run on multi-core systems. What do
they mean by optimised in this respect? I find it hard to believe that
an industry of that size can all of a sudden do a paradigm shift so
easily, without any discussion in the press about re-training. But then
again I could be misinterpreting their meaning on this.
Kevin Chalmers
Research Student
School of Computing
Napier University
Edinburgh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Cook [mailto:Barry@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 29 November 2006 15:11
> To: Tony Gore; Chalmers, Kevin; Matt Jadud; Andrew Delin
> Cc: occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Transputer Development System, 2006? (aka Sony PS/3 runs
> multi-core Linux)
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> Funnily enough I've just read the IEEE Computer article on
virtualisation
> (separate virtual OS's) [pp12-14, November issue]. This is the Nth
time
> virtualisation has crossed my horizon and it appears to have a lot of
> support - I guess IBM proved its value back in the VM/370 days and
there
> are
> now several companies offering software for single-processor machines.
>
> It seems to me more like having several CPU's just happening to be on
the
> same silicon (with cost savings in sharing memory etc.) - a rather
limited
> interpretation of parallel computing. I am certainly finding it useful
to
> have a "dual" processor so I can leave a compute-intensive task
running
> and
> still do email (as now) without it going annoyingly slowly.
>
> I suspect the occam community is thinking of something more complex in
> terms
> of concurrency.
>
> Barry.
>
> Dr Barry M. Cook, BSc, PhD, CEng, MBCS, CITP, MIEEE
> CTO,
> 4Links Limited,
> The Mansion,
> Bletchley Park,
> MK3 6ZP,
> UK.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Gore" <Tony@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Barry Cook" <Barry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Chalmers, Kevin"
> <K.Chalmers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Matt Jadud" <mcj4@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Andrew
Delin"
> <Andrew.Delin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:07 PM
> Subject: RE: Transputer Development System, 2006? (aka Sony PS/3 runs
> multi-core Linux)
>
>
> Hi Barry
>
> Out in one part of the world, multicore has got some uses -
Microsoft's
> Virtual Server can allocate a virtual machine to a core, so that it is
> possible (say) to have one core allocated to the "host" and three
cores
> allocated to three separate VMs. Since you can then network these, it
is
> possible to have very coarse CSP.
>
> Now what would be interesting is if this development were to go
further,
> and whole chunks of the OS be put onto specific cores.
>
> In my area - I do a lot of Windows Small Business Server support, I
> could see a great improvement in security and robustness. For example,
> one core handling all the traffic to the outside world e.g. running
the
> firewall and VPN processes, and everything else communicating through
> them would ensure that at least perimeter security could be dealt with
> more effectively.
>
> Overall the security and robustness could be improved, because instead
> of a monolithic OS that is growing patch by patch, then it is possible
> to have a divide and conquer approach that makes use of the multicored
> silicon.
>
> Obviously, it would be nice to have a lighter weight inter-process
> communication than the full Ethernet stack running on Virtual
hardware,
> but it seems to me that the server virtualisation is a good target for
a
> coarse CSP approach, and at this atage, we need to convince people
that
> CSP is a valid approach.
>
> Tony Gore
>
> email tony@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> tel +44-1278-761000 FAX +44-1278-760006 GSM +44-7768-598570
> URL: www.aspen.uk.com
> Aspen Enterprises Limited
> Registered in England and Wales no. 3055963 Reg.Office Aspen House,
> Burton Row, Brent Knoll, Somerset TA9 4BW. UK
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of Barry Cook
> Sent: 29 November 2006 11:35
> To: Chalmers, Kevin; Matt Jadud; Andrew Delin
> Cc: occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Transputer Development System, 2006? (aka Sony PS/3 runs
> multi-core Linux)
>
> Kevin,
>
> It probably says nothing about Intel's views on parallel development.
>
> Intel's business is selling chips and if they can offer even slightly
> more performance for no more effort from customers (keep the same
> software) they will achieve their goal.
>
> Even great gains in performance that include re-development of
software
> (whether easy or not, anything is more effort than nothing) are more
> difficult to sell (recall Inmos).
>
> I'm still trying to find the compelling reason that will convince the
> world to jump to parallel software - and thinking along the lines of
it
> needing to be new software and maybe to reduce power consumption (as
is
> a paper at Eindhoven). This is leading me to think of embedded systems
> that are relatively small (in terms of lines of code as well as for
> energy or size).
> If you add reliability / safety-critical supported by formalism then
> Automotive might be a target (as suggested by Eric Verhulst), as might
> Space.
>
> Barry.
>
> Dr Barry M. Cook, BSc, PhD, CEng, MBCS, CITP, MIEEE CTO, 4Links
Limited,
> The Mansion, Bletchley Park,
> MK3 6ZP,
> UK.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chalmers, Kevin" <K.Chalmers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Matt Jadud" <mcj4@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Andrew Delin"
> <Andrew.Delin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:52 AM
> Subject: RE: Transputer Development System, 2006? (aka Sony PS/3 runs
> multi-core Linux)
>
>
> Perhaps a little off topic on this one. Myself and Jon Kerridge were
> looking at Intel's descriptions and plans with multi-core. From what
we
> can gather, their plan is to remove any need to develop parallel
> systems, and let the system try and work out the best approach. It
> seems Intel believes that parallel development is too difficult.
Sigh.
>
> Kevin Chalmers
> Research Student
> School of Computing
> Napier University
> Edinburgh
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Damian Dimmich at is working towards this; he had a paper in CPA
2006
> > that explores just this issue, and has a working port of the
> > Transterpreter (a small, portable runtime for occam-pi) to the Cell.
> >
> >
>
http://www.transterpreter.org/papers/dimmich-jacobsen-jadud-cpa-2006.pdf
> >
> > Running on top of Yellow Dog would be the easy way in; Damian is
> > exploring code distribution and code generation for multi-core
targets
>
> > like the Cell, and (currently) has 9 separate instances of the
runtime
>
> > environment on a single CPU.
> >
> > See the paper for more details; also, since Damian is on this list,
he
>
> > might have additional comments or be able to address more specific
> > questions that you or others might have.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Matt
> >
> > Andrew Delin wrote:
> > > Team, I thought this was interesting.
> > >
> > > Why might we be interested in the release of Sony's PS/3 games
> console?
> > >
> > > Because it contains a multi-core Cell processor - and can run
Linux.
> > >
> > > Fred and others - I am wondering if it is possible to release a
KROC
> > that targets this platform and takes advantage of the multiple
> processors
> > inside the new Sony console. This would give a true parallel machine
> to
> > run Occam-Pi. It could be used as a modern 'TDS' with several cores
to
> run
> > on.
> > >
> > > Nine cores is very tempting - and rather cheap. I understand the
YD
> > Linux distribution doesn't fully use all cores, but perhaps an
> Occam-Pi
> > build could? If we can piggy back on the interest in Linux, perhaps
we
>
> > might get more interest in the process-oriented-design philosophy
> we've
> > discussed on this group.
> > >
>
> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be
> read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University
without
> the permission of the sender.
> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
> attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier
University
> does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from
> this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after
> it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the
> University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by
> the University.
>
>
>
>
This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss
or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the
University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.