From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@uni-koblenz.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>
Cc: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: SMP Theory (was: Re: Interesting analysis of linux kernel threading by IBM)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 03:38:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20000125033807.B6090@uni-koblenz.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20000125005645.A5940@pcep-jamie.cern.ch>
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 12:56:45AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> > If this is indeed the case (please correct any misconceptions I have) then
> > it strikes me that perhaps the hardware design of SMP is broken. That
> > instead of sharing main memory, each processor should have it's own main
> > memory. You connect the various main memory chunks to the "primary" CPU via
> > some sort of very wide, very fast memory bus, and then when you spawn a
> > thread, you instead do something more like a fork - copy the relevent
> > process and data to the child cpu's private main memory (perhaps via some
> > sort of blitter) over this bus, and then let that CPU go play in its own
> > sandbox for a while.
>
> I think you just reinvented NUMA -- Non-Uniform Memory Access. Every
> CPU can access the others' memory, but you really want them to
> concentrate on their own. SGI does some boxes like that.
SGI does ccNUMA, cache coherent NUMA. The difference is that unlike in
`real' NUMA machines each processor on a node has access to memory in each
node directly. A node in an Origin system is a dual CPU SMP system.
> Linux even has a memory allocator which is moving in the direction of
> supporting those things.
It's actually the start of the support for the Origin series but other
systems are expected to jump the wagon.
> > Which really is more like the "array of uni-processor boxen joined by a
> > network" model than it is current SMP - just with a REALLY fast&wide
> > network pipe that just happens to be in the same physical box.
>
> It's been proposed to have multiple instances of the OS running too,
> instead of one OS running on all CPUs.
Ok, but users and application developers still want the entire system to
feel like a single system.
Ralf
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-01-24 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-01-24 22:46 dg50
2000-01-24 23:56 ` Jamie Lokier
2000-01-25 2:38 ` Ralf Baechle [this message]
2000-01-25 0:54 ` Larry McVoy
[not found] <000f01bf66da$872a6730$021d85d1@youwant.to>
2000-01-25 10:47 ` Davide Libenzi
2000-01-25 19:39 Iain McClatchie
[not found] ` <388DFF0F.8E7784A1@timpanogas.com>
2000-01-25 21:26 ` Iain McClatchie
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=20000125033807.B6090@uni-koblenz.de \
--to=ralf@uni-koblenz.de \
--cc=dg50@daimlerchrysler.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu \
--cc=lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk \
/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®