Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Stealing a Great Idea from the 6600 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:00:55 +0000 Organization: Rocksolid Light Message-ID: <9fb8868c1ee40a4481d20ed7214e146b@www.novabbs.org> References: <152f8504112a37d8434c663e99cb36c5@www.novabbs.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4088001"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$C6UKmPh5CxOv5XKVC7q8BON2wQS4x4DDGtRusB9EBKXUQZ2fk9gsO X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8 Bytes: 1547 Lines: 11 Kent writes an interesting thesis on why OoO overtook IO wrt scheduling. One can add other scheduling effects:: a) change in latency on some FUs but not on others b) change is register ports per instruction c) branch prediction changes d) cache timing wrt prefetch Having gone through the transition (1-wide IO, 2-wide IO, 6-wide OoO) the OoO machine was simply less complexity--or to say it a different way--the complexity was more orderly (and more easily verified).