From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <D98F80AD-F616-4D83-97A3-D07F2C5C71E7@gmail.com>
From: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <e763acc10910141254v7d1ba9cdte9dc97a2111aa6e6@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7D11)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:36:57 -0600
References: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0910140909020.23231@malasada.lava.net>
	<e763acc10910141254v7d1ba9cdte9dc97a2111aa6e6@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Barrelfish
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 863f38b0-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

And how does one deal with heterogeneous cores and complex on chip
interconnect topologies?  Barrelfish also gas a nice benefit in that
it could span coherence domains.

There's no real evdence that single kernels do well with hundreds of
real cores (as opposed to hw threads) - in fact most of the data I've
seen is to the contrary.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Tim Newsham <newsham@lava.net>
> wrote:
>> Rethinking multi-core systems as distributed heterogeneous
>> systems.  Thoughts?
>
> Somehow this feels related to the work that came out of Berkeley a
> year
> or so ago. I'm still not convinced what is the benefits of multiple
> kernels. If you are managing a couple of 100s of cores a single kernel
> would do just fine, once the industry is ready for a couple dozen of
> thousands PUs -- the kernel is most likely to be dispensed with
> anyway.
>
> Did you find any ideas there particularly engaging?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>