By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), March 21, 2021 2:12 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Stanislav Shwartsman (stanislav.shwartsman.delete@this.intel.com) on March 20, 2021 6:22 am wrote:
> Moritz (better.delete@this.not.tell) on March 20, 2021 5:21 am wrote:
> > What if you could completely rethink the general processor concept?
> > There are concepts that were without alternative in the days of little memory and few transistors:
> > Sequential instructions by storage address and jumps based on that address
> > Implicit dependency based on above principle
> > Explicit naming of storage place rather than data item
> > Explicit caching into registers
> > Implicit addressing of registers
> > Mixing of memory, float, integer instructions in one instruction stream
> > that must be analyzed to remove the assumed sequentiallity.
> > The ISA used to represent the physical architecture, today that
> > is no longer the case in high performance microprocessors.
> > The data modifies the program flow at run-time, instead of explicitly generating the data stream
> > that reaches the execution units. The CPU steps through the program issuing the data to EUs instead
> > of the program explicitly generating multiple data streams with synchronization markers.
> > ... and many other implications that are so "natural" to us that we can not see/name them. As usual
> > we can not even question the ways, because we are so used to them. There are infinite bad ways of doing
> > it, but some of those forced/obvious (legacy) design decisions of the past might no longer be that
> > necessary/without alternative. Some ways that seem cumbersome and wasteful might on second thought
> > turn out to be hard on the human, but open new ways to the compiler, RTE, OS, CPU removing as much
> > complexity as they add, but increasing throughput or energy efficiency beyond the current limit.
>
> Do you want a short answer ? A long answer would be as big as new revision of Hennessy and Patterson book.
>
> My vision was greatly inspired by Boris Babayan VIP architecture.
> But as usual when I look on a paper or a concept (or even a religion) I misunderstand
> in my own unique way and get my own architecture out of it)
>
> You may see Babayan talking about Future here https://www.arccn.ru/media/babayan_video/
>
> Stanislav
>
https://www.realworldtech.com/elbrus/
If you did, what do you think about it?
> Moritz (better.delete@this.not.tell) on March 20, 2021 5:21 am wrote:
> > What if you could completely rethink the general processor concept?
> > There are concepts that were without alternative in the days of little memory and few transistors:
> > Sequential instructions by storage address and jumps based on that address
> > Implicit dependency based on above principle
> > Explicit naming of storage place rather than data item
> > Explicit caching into registers
> > Implicit addressing of registers
> > Mixing of memory, float, integer instructions in one instruction stream
> > that must be analyzed to remove the assumed sequentiallity.
> > The ISA used to represent the physical architecture, today that
> > is no longer the case in high performance microprocessors.
> > The data modifies the program flow at run-time, instead of explicitly generating the data stream
> > that reaches the execution units. The CPU steps through the program issuing the data to EUs instead
> > of the program explicitly generating multiple data streams with synchronization markers.
> > ... and many other implications that are so "natural" to us that we can not see/name them. As usual
> > we can not even question the ways, because we are so used to them. There are infinite bad ways of doing
> > it, but some of those forced/obvious (legacy) design decisions of the past might no longer be that
> > necessary/without alternative. Some ways that seem cumbersome and wasteful might on second thought
> > turn out to be hard on the human, but open new ways to the compiler, RTE, OS, CPU removing as much
> > complexity as they add, but increasing throughput or energy efficiency beyond the current limit.
>
> Do you want a short answer ? A long answer would be as big as new revision of Hennessy and Patterson book.
>
> My vision was greatly inspired by Boris Babayan VIP architecture.
> But as usual when I look on a paper or a concept (or even a religion) I misunderstand
> in my own unique way and get my own architecture out of it)
>
> You may see Babayan talking about Future here https://www.arccn.ru/media/babayan_video/
>
> Stanislav
>
https://www.realworldtech.com/elbrus/
If you did, what do you think about it?
