Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dale_laroy who wrote (71911)	2/19/2002 11:45:32 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dale: Not sure about Hyperthreading, but Jackson Technology can be implemented without multiple distinct threads. I was convinced HyperThreading and Jackson Technology were the same thing (similar to HyperTransport and LDT). Is this an incorrect conviction? -fyo

To: dale_laroy who wrote (71911)	2/19/2002 4:32:48 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Jackson Technology can be implemented without multiple distinct threads. Jackson Technology includes such things as automatic launch of concurrent threads along both paths of an unresolved branch, and sophisticated pipelining of data to minimize stalls due to the length of time a data access can take... I had never understood the distinction before and thought any CPU implementing Jackson Technology had to implement full Symmetric multi threading (SMT), which implies that the OS thinks it is feeding instructions to two CPU's. Jackson Technology as you describe it could just be considered part of instruction level parallelism (ILP). While true SMT requires that there be a set of registers for each thread, I don't believe this is the case for Jackson technology "threads" created by trying to execute both possibilities of a conditional branch -- it just needs some additional registers allocated from a pool to start the new thread. Even if one of the two threads becomes stalled because it needs a register and there aren't any more, eventually the conditional branch will get resolved, either terminating the waiting "thread" or releasing the registers used by the other one. I can also see Jackson Technology being able to create multiple "threads" from inline code which has no branches and apparently no dependencies. For example, if a compiler generated 5 instructions manipulating the AX register followed by five instrucionts manipulating BX, possibly including loads from memory but no stores, then either set of code could run first, or the instructions could even be interleaved. By treating these as seperate "threads" it is possible to prevent cache-miss stalls, or, if the CPU has multiple integer execution units, possibly run both "threads" in parallel. In fact, the more I think about it, Jackson technology without full SMT is probably a better model than SMT without Jackson technology, primarily because it should speed up all compiler generated code, not just code that has been organized by the programmer to be explicitly multi-threaded. Also, this kind of parallelism avoids per-CPU charges since the operating system (EDIT - nor Bill Gates, HA!) doesn't have to know a thing about the little "threads" that the CPU is creating dynamically, all by itself. Petz