From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 1403 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2021 18:57:31 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 Sep 2021 18:57:31 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 05F5B9CAC5; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 04:57:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7A29CAB3; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 04:57:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8B9BF9CAB3; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 04:57:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (fourwinds.com [63.64.179.162]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1412A9CAB2 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 04:57:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkstar.fourwinds.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 18HIuxvq3403960 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:56:59 -0700 Received: from darkstar.fourwinds.com (jon@localhost) by darkstar.fourwinds.com (8.16.1/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 18HIuw5g3403957 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:56:59 -0700 Message-Id: <202109171856.18HIuw5g3403957@darkstar.fourwinds.com> From: Jon Steinhart To: TUHS main list In-reply-to: <242A20E1-3A22-4C98-8D96-02C3662724D4@iitbombay.org> References: <202109161934.18GJYFsl881498@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20210916194103.GK26820@mcvoy.com> <58BCBB10-A303-41C0-8620-992B107786BB@pobox.com> <202109171751.18HHpcAf3401326@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <242A20E1-3A22-4C98-8D96-02C3662724D4@iitbombay.org> Comments: In-reply-to Bakul Shah message dated "Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:34:07 -0700." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3403955.1631905018.1@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:56:58 -0700 X-JON-SPAM: local delivery Subject: Re: [TUHS] ATC/OSDI'21 joint keynote: It's Time for Operating Systems to Rediscover Hardware (Timothy Roscoe) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Bakul Shah writes: > > IMHO the real issue is that the software folks are *not* providing > and *can no*t provide any sort of guidance for general purpose > computing, as the memory underlying modern programming languages > is so far removed from reality. The situation is sorta like what > happens with people with newly acquired incredible wealth but no > background in how to spend or manage it wisely (and I don't mean > *investing* to get more wealth). At least in that case there are > people who can help you and a tremendous need. Here we can put > billions and billions of gates on a chip and even do wafer scale > integration but these gates are not fungible like money. Are you sure about this? Or is it just that the hardware folks got to work without ever asking software/systems people for input? Reminds me of a UNIX workstation project that I was working on at a startup in the mid-1980s. The graphics hardware guy came from DEC and had his designs well under way before I was hired. I looked at his specs and asked WTF? He had put a lot of work, for example, into blazingly fast frame-buffer clears. I asked him why and he told me that that was a very important thing to DECs customers. He was crestfallen when I told him that I would never use that hunk of hardware because we were building a windowing system and not a standalone graphics terminal. So yeah, he built useless hardware because he never asked for system design help. It's not just compute hardware. Was working on a project in the 1990s that you might be connected to if you're ever in the emergency room. After I hired on, I looked over the schematics for the device and kept asking "What's this for?" Answer was consistently "Thought that it would be useful for you software folks." My response was "Hey, we're trying to build a low-cost device here. We don't need it, take it out." The common thread here, which I don't know if it applies to your example, is that hardware has traditionally had a longer lead time than software so commonly a hardware team is assembled and busy designing long before any software/systems types are brought on board. Sometimes it makes sense. I'll never forget a day that I expected to be walked to the door at a company but to my surprise management backed me up. A big failing of the company was that the lead chip designer was also a founder and on the board so was hard to hold to account. This person could always find a better way to do something that had already been done, so perpetual chip redesigns meant that the chip never happened. I was in a weekly status meeting where the hardware team presented its status and schedule. When it was question time, I asked something like "So, if I look at your schedule this has 2 weeks to go and this has 5 and so on, meaning that there's 20 weeks of work left. Does that mean that we're not gonna tape out next week like it says on the schedule?" I got reamed up and down for not showing respect for the ever so hard working hardware team. I think that what saved my butt was pointing out that I was not criticizing the hardware team, but that we had a big hiring plan for the software team once the hardware was on its way, and only so much money in the bank, and maybe we shouldn't be spending that money quite yet. Jon