Re: [9fans] NUMA

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> If RISC has succeeded, this is precisely because the elements were
> simple enough to be implemented in hardware, and this simplicity allowed
> to work reliably on optimizations.

it's interesting you bring this up.  risc has largely been removed
from architectures.  if you tie the instruction set and machine model
to the actual hardware, then you need to write new compilers and
recompile everything every few years.  instead, the risc is hidden
and the instruction set stays the same.  this allows for a lot of
under-the-hood innovation in isolation from the architecture.

isolation is generally a good thing, and i don't believe i've seen
a compelling argument coupling architechture to implementation
is necessary.

(by architecture, of course, i mean what you read in the ia64 or
amd64 programmer's manual, not the implementation, which
intel unhelpfully calls the µarch.)

- erik