By: coppice (coppice.delete@this.dis.org), January 8, 2015 10:18 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on January 7, 2015 6:03 am wrote:
> Recently Intel's Crago and coworkers have published a set of latency techniques "to reach
> the energy efficiency goals of future 1000-core data-parallel processors" [1]. They evaluated
> and rejected a number of existent latency techniques, including Linus beloved OoO.
>
> [1] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6522327&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6522327
>
Interesting paper. Perhaps you should read it some time. On the other hand, if you have read it you should be ashamed of so blatantly misrepresenting its conclusions about OoO.
> Recently Intel's Crago and coworkers have published a set of latency techniques "to reach
> the energy efficiency goals of future 1000-core data-parallel processors" [1]. They evaluated
> and rejected a number of existent latency techniques, including Linus beloved OoO.
>
> [1] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6522327&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6522327
>
Interesting paper. Perhaps you should read it some time. On the other hand, if you have read it you should be ashamed of so blatantly misrepresenting its conclusions about OoO.
