From: David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>,
Ville Herva <vherva@twilight.cs.hut.fi>,
george anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: jiffies rollover, uptime etc.
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:08:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15475.62505.876859.287751@napali.hpl.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0202201423170.1413-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
In-Reply-To: <20020220172052.GA15228@matchmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0202201423170.1413-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:24:42 -0300 (BRT), Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> said:
Rik> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> What's the difference between these two architectures? Intel
>> 64bit processor and AMD's upcoming 64bit processor?
Rik> One is a 64 bit extension to a modern superscalar architecture
Rik> which has descended from 8 bit machines over the ages.
Interesting opinion.
Rik> The other is a 3-issue VLIW follow-up to the 2-issue VLIW i860.
There are some factual errors in this statement:
The ia64 _architecture_ places no limit on how many instructions can
be issued at a time. You could have an instruction group that's
thousands of instructions long which could all be executed in a single
cycle. Of course, realistic CPUs will bound the number of
instructions that can be issued in parallel. The Itanium and McKinley
_implementations_ of ia64 happen to issue up to 6 instructions at a
time, but other issue-widths are possible.
To the best of my knowledge, i860 had virtually no influence on ia64.
Cydrome's Cydra5 and Multiflow's TRACE did, as did PA-RISC.
Thanks,
--david
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-20 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-18 21:42 Oliver Hillmann
2002-02-18 22:10 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-18 22:03 ` Oliver Hillmann
2002-02-18 22:19 ` Ben Greear
2002-02-18 22:32 ` Tim Schmielau
2002-02-18 22:43 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-18 23:26 ` bert hubert
2002-02-18 23:56 ` J Sloan
2002-02-18 23:57 ` Alan Cox
2002-02-19 0:58 ` Stephen Frost
2002-02-19 4:47 ` Paul Jakma
2002-02-19 0:17 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-19 20:55 ` george anzinger
2002-02-20 11:36 ` Ville Herva
2002-02-20 17:20 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-20 17:24 ` Rik van Riel
2002-02-20 17:32 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-20 17:39 ` Rik van Riel
2002-02-20 17:44 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-02-20 17:56 ` Derek Gladding
2002-02-21 13:19 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-20 19:53 ` Robert Love
2002-02-20 19:08 ` David Mosberger [this message]
2002-02-20 15:46 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-02-20 16:50 ` george anzinger
2002-02-18 22:12 ` Tim Schmielau
2002-02-18 23:22 ` J Sloan
2002-02-19 2:54 Chris Adams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15475.62505.876859.287751@napali.hpl.hp.com \
--to=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=vherva@twilight.cs.hut.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®