Re: Efficient IPC mechanism on Linux

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Luca Veraldi wrote:

> I'm not responsible for microarchitecture designer stupidity.
> If a simple STORE assembler instruction will eat up 4000 clock cycles,
> as you say here, well,

If current trends continue, a L2 cache miss will be
taking 5000 cycles in 15 to 20 years.

> I think all we Computer Scientists can go home and give it up now.

While I have seen some evidence of computer scientists
going home and ignoring the problems presented to them
by current hardware constraints, I'd really prefer it
if they took up the challenge and did the research on
how we should deal with hardware in the future.

In fact, I've made up a little (incomplete) list of
things that I suspect are in need of serious CS research,
because otherwise both OS theory and practice will be
unable to deal with the hardware of the next decade.

	http://surriel.com/research_wanted/

If you have any suggestions for the list, please let
me know.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/