From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C38BBAF for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:01:51 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkQFAAUTd0hKfSwdY2dsb2JhbACRZDkaBB6WUIYc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,345,1212357600"; d="scan'208";a="27242273" Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.29]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2008 17:01:50 +0200 Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so1108278yxj.3 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:01:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=Pil/x8VOUq6/lDlHflJurr+MTELSJw4otSsWRPt5boE=; b=inWuilmxT5Q2FhGnY5YmZDG6dAK2y1NgQY6fKnQwCCni3dzXGyNK/7OkzazzapmUx2 Bb13pdFbctjaCdFx63mfc/ciQ0rb0Oj44fjoyeD4mwpxii2bdRWI+aI9UGX9I8DJyTpI LN6atbltZP7+0SnpvjkaKUsRPF3cXpIuJJ5y0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=nSVT6OMH6lManI9ibp70Yu/AiODe12nFkgSmphCYhfD6giqJw9AKcIVyECrcZn/kZq GwT0cV7L5cXr/1N2YtBtRwr9ZxKWWNzGQgS5zyoOnh7eu3rgAURuvAYPy8DUQ8qNojKV JnFZFe19Utn3Bh+gjV5YY4gEOvtNAhB5fLzhY= Received: by 10.142.218.4 with SMTP id q4mr3146953wfg.273.1215788509104; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lawn-143-215-204-204.lawn.gatech.edu ( [143.215.204.204]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm882587ywf.2.2008.07.11.08.01.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:01:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Peng Zang Reply-To: peng.zang@gmail.com To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] thousands of CPU cores Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:01:43 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Brian Hurt , Gerd Stolpmann References: <1215717356.24773.17.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807111101.46248.peng.zang@gmail.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; hash:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 ticked:01 peng:98 peng:98 ick:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 precisely:01 gnu:03 contrast:03 jul:05 thu:05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 10 July 2008 11:01:31 pm Brian Hurt wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > > I wouldn't take this article too seriously. It's just speculation. > > I would take the article seriously. > > > Just open up your mind to this perspective: It's a big risk for the CPU > > vendors to haven taken the direction to multi-core. > > *Precisely*. It also stands in stark contrast to the last 50 or so years > of CPU development, which focused around making single-threaded code > faster. And, I note, it's not just one CPU manufacturer who has done this > (which could be chalked up to stupid management or stupid engineers)- but > *every* CPU manufacturer. And what do they get out of it, other than > ticked off software developers grumbling about having to switch to > multithreaded code? I think we can all agree that more computing units being used in parallel is going to be the future. The main point here is that a shared-memory architecture is not necessarily (and in my opinion doubtful) the approach that will be taken for large numbers of CPUs. Peng -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFId3XafIRcEFL/JewRAqWsAJQIUFRO7aMoyVOZGzmKbXITloOwAKCm+QZd WR7HXzzrzuNL8q3q3HuztQ== =2IcK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----