Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:00:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <vcskt7$2rqt1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>
 <memo.20240923213912.19028R@jgd.cix.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 23:00:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="660fd644dd625a4b4390b873b877805b";
	logging-data="3009441"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sXgJkE8aS18WRMv4Xxt730hucDPFgzyI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZHjQi2vIKsJBvk+xqbinKt0c8ik=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <memo.20240923213912.19028R@jgd.cix.co.uk>
Bytes: 1974

On 9/23/2024 3:39 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> In article <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>, already5chosen@yahoo.com
> (Michael S) wrote:
> 
>> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) wrote:
>>> When only 1 x86 would fit on a die, it really did not mater
>>> much. I was at AMD when they were designing their memory
>>> model.
> 
>> Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?
> 
> Because multi-core made multi-processor systems commonplace, and far more
> software started using multiple threads.
> 

Though...

If one added a scheduling constraint that two threads within a single 
process could not run at the same time on multiple cores, with each 
process assigned an affinity to a specific core...

Then memory consistency between cores would be less of an issue:
Threads would still behave as if there were TSO, on a weak-model CPU...


> John