[clean-list] Matrix timings
Marco Kesseler
M.Kesseler@aia.nl
Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:37:18 +0100
Date sent: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:33:53 +0100
From: Siegfried Gonzi <siegfried.gonzi@kfunigraz.ac.at>
Organization: Universitaet Graz
To: clean-list@cs.kun.nl
Subject: Re: [clean-list] Matrix timings
> Lest play hardball: Newer processors include parallelism in the
> processor itself. The new G4 processor highly parallise tasks. C and
> Fortran can always exploit this feature. I once red an article by a NASA
> magnetohydrodynamics-guy about G4 parallelism and how one can exploit it
> with C or Fortran (as long a the compiler-vendor supports it).
In principle, Clean should be able to exploit this too, but it is the
same as with C or Fortran: the compiler vendor must support it.
This stuff however is rather processor-dependent, so the question
becomes whether it is reasonable to expect such support from the
Clean implementers.
These issues indicate that it would be A Good Thing to open
source the Clean compiler. Unfortunately it seems that the code
generator (which is written in C, even in 2.0) will not be published.
Exploiting processor parallellism would certainly require some
changes in that part of the compiler.
> The Clean strategy has been a few years ago to also use parallelism but
> with two and more physical processors. But this is only my assumption
> that to this time the prospect has been that in the future we are using
> highly parallelised machines in form of two and more processors. But it
> seems that hardware manufactures decided to go a different way and embed
> this all into one processor.
The hardware manufacturers do not offer an alternative to multi-
processor machines. They resort to parallellism because they have
no choice if they want to run their processors at higher speeds.
Intel and IBM/Motorola all have parallellism on their chips, but thet
have made different decisions in this respect. The Pentium seeks
higher speeds in deep pipeline-parallellism which enables higher
clock rates (partly a marketing issue), whereas the PowerPC
mainly seeks higher speeds in data-parallellism, avoiding deep
pipelines to a certain extent (promising good performance at lower
clock rates - whether this is true in practice I do not know). The
performance impact of these decisions depend on the application,
and compiler support for these architectures.
> Here C will always win.
Currently yes, because there are so many more developers
involved in C/C++ than in Clean.
regards,
Marco
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aia Phone: +31 24 371 02 30
PO Box 38025 Fax: +31 24 371 02 31
6503 AA Nijmegen Email: M.Kesseler@aia.nl
The Netherlands URL: http://www.aia.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This E-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are adressed. If you have received this E-mail in error please notify
the postmaster (postmaster@aia.nl). The authenticity of this
message cannot, at this moment, be guaranteed by ourselves. For this
reason no legal rights may be granted should the contents differ to
the original sent message. The Aia log-file of sent messages is
deemed to be the sole, true transcript of communication unless the
contrary, other than the received message, can be proven.
----------------------------------------------------------------------