←back to thread

155 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
bee_rider ◴[] No.45075394[source]
The static schedule part seems really interesting. They note that it only works for some instructions, but I wonder if it would be possible to have a compiler report “this section of the code can be statically scheduled.” In that case, could this have a benefit for real-time operation? Or maybe some specialized partially real-time application—mark a segment of the program as desiring static scheduling, and don’t allow memory loads, etc, inside there.
replies(4): >>45075641 #>>45075901 #>>45078349 #>>45087597 #
usrusr ◴[] No.45075641[source]
What would the CPU do with the parts not marked as "can be statically scheduled"? I read it as they try it anyways and may get some stalling ("replay") if the schedule was overoptimistic. Not sure how a compiler marking sections could be of help?
replies(2): >>45075909 #>>45081427 #
imtringued ◴[] No.45081427[source]
Assuming a parallel programming language and a SMT aware compiler, the CPU could just switch to another block of static instructions while it is waiting.
replies(2): >>45082184 #>>45087612 #
1. tliltocatl ◴[] No.45082184[source]
> Assuming a parallel programming language

Assuming a parallelizable workload, which is often not the case.