Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #6517

Re: Indirect Bit

Path csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:33:21 -0500
Message-ID <4F87AC8E.80802@SPAM.comp-arch.net> (permalink)
Date Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:33:18 -0700
From "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net>
Reply-To andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net
Organization comp-arch.net
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version 1.0
Newsgroups comp.arch
Subject Re: Indirect Bit
References <4F84FB1E.6CD1FC88@sonic.net> <K_OdnQdP7IQQDhjSnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@giganews.com> <72e7ba91-76b9-49ec-b5fc-1313976aae34@v17g2000pbt.googlegroups.com> <4F87799B.F019D9DB@sonic.net> <34f253f7-9ded-4356-b746-6ae423b3fdb4@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To <34f253f7-9ded-4356-b746-6ae423b3fdb4@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
Lines 57
X-Usenet-Provider http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace sv3-SVQPJ1ixt4lwJ+nLQpn8AtWfO5O+FbvV5VQH0RPgKj5m96p+InjQ3l52/t/UKaBNVZjTHB1oUd4PAVi!sPHoNBm6Q7/80ni9T1VgERGk+Zux4Zo8canuSVgDxyv1RNEZP+NXeq0uiQ==
X-Complaints-To abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes 4041
Xref csiph.com comp.arch:6517

Show key headers only | View raw

On 4/12/2012 5:25 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:55 pm, Mark Thorson<nos...@sonic.net>  wrote:
>
>> Assume you have to write and read
>> each location at least once.  That
>> provides an upper bound on how much
>> memory a von Neumann machine can use.
>
> You haven't seen the quad-core machines turning up at your local
> computer store yet?
>
> That machines will continue to be von Neuman uniprocessor computers,
> rather than some sort of massively parallel architecture... is not a
> physical constraint, and, in fact, appears to be contra-indicated by
> current trends.
>
> So the fact that a machine with 2^80 bytes of RAM might also have 2^40
> processors (or just 2^30 processors) in it... is not necessarily a
> fatal obstacle to the existence of such a machine.
>
> John Savard

OK, what exactly does "Von Neuman architecture" mean to you? Not just 
you, John, but other comp.arch participants.

Uniprocessor - okay, I give, not interesting going forward.

However, I think of a quad core, or even a 2^40 processor system, as 
being a parallel Von Neuman machine.

Wikipedia says "First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC ... a design 
architecture for an electronic digital computer with subdivisions of a 
processing unit consisting of an arithmetic logic unit and processor 
registers, a control unit containing an instruction register and program 
counter, a memory to store both data and instructions, external mass 
storage, and input and output mechanisms."

Many parallel machines are going to look like this, at each node.

A neural net is non-Von, because it doesn't have the pieces: no PC, no 
separate program, the program is the interconnection network.

Thinking of the "von Neuman bottleneck" as a shared instruction and data 
bus that cannort fetch and instruction and do data memory at the same 
time is not interesting.  We have had Harvard cache architectures on von 
Neuman machines for years.  Programs *are* data, but not all the time: 
the data phase and the instruction phase tend to be fairly separate.

My take is that the sequencer, the PC, is the basic von Neuman 
bottleneck.  Somebody has to write a program that gets sequenced. 
Dataflow is between VN and neural nets, because the sequencing is not so 
explicit as in VN, but not as implicit or structured as in neural nets.

Perhaps most interesting is the possiblilty of non-von Neuman 
programming styles running on, whatever, possibly highly parallel von 
Neuman multiprocessors.  Programming, sequencing, is the true von Neuman 
bottleneck.  Logic programming is non-VN.

Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Indirect Bit Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-04-10 19:31 -0800
  Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 01:29 -0500
    Re: Indirect Bit sarr.blumson@alum.dartmouth.org - 2012-04-11 14:48 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2012-04-12 14:43 +0000
    Re: Indirect Bit Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2012-04-22 15:19 +0200
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-22 23:24 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-11 08:32 +0200
    Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 05:49 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:22 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 08:14 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 16:13 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 20:01 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-14 03:16 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 08:14 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 16:05 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-13 17:01 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-14 13:49 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-13 20:07 -0400
          Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-14 18:47 +0200
          Re: Indirect Bit Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2012-04-22 15:26 +0200
            Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-22 23:25 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 09:18 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-23 19:35 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 08:37 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 09:42 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 01:58 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 11:26 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 05:02 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 13:58 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 10:07 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 04:30 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 13:01 +0100
  Re: Indirect Bit Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-04-11 10:03 -0400
  Re: Indirect Bit kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2012-04-11 09:22 -0500
    Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 14:11 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-04-12 18:05 -0400
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 20:13 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-04-12 16:55 -0800
        Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 17:25 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-12 20:03 -0500
          Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:33 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 15:57 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-13 17:03 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 20:14 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-11 10:35 -0400
  Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-11 08:54 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 07:55 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-12 10:16 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:07 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:34 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-12 11:35 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:41 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 14:52 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-15 09:24 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-15 22:45 +0200
              Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-15 18:04 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:12 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-04-12 19:23 +0000
    Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-13 08:54 +0200
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-14 14:37 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-15 23:42 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 08:08 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-16 23:38 +0000
          Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-16 21:29 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-16 21:25 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 14:05 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit ChrisQ <blackhole@devnull.com> - 2012-04-14 10:12 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 06:25 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-14 14:50 +0100
          Re: Indirect Bit ChrisQ <blackhole@devnull.com> - 2012-04-14 18:01 +0000
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-14 14:00 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-14 20:58 -0400
            Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 09:57 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-04-20 23:19 +0000
          Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 08:50 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-16 18:09 +0100
              Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-16 23:19 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-17 09:20 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-17 12:49 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-17 12:40 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-18 12:01 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-17 12:34 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-17 09:10 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-17 22:05 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-04-19 19:37 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-04-20 11:10 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-20 11:24 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 15:01 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 15:03 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-20 08:01 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 16:35 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-18 11:10 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-18 15:37 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 11:21 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-16 19:36 +0100
              Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-18 11:17 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-18 15:33 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Andreas Eder <andreas_eder@gmx.net> - 2012-04-19 00:29 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-19 10:50 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 11:29 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-19 21:39 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-20 15:14 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-20 22:43 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-21 17:14 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-21 19:47 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 10:45 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 09:57 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-22 12:54 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 13:00 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 13:28 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 13:04 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-22 23:00 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-22 18:05 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-22 23:20 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 08:22 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 03:56 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-22 12:28 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 12:56 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-22 13:15 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 22:30 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 21:40 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 17:15 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 08:26 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-23 08:02 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 17:02 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-23 20:17 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-23 13:07 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-22 13:16 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-23 13:14 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-23 16:51 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-23 14:22 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-21 11:17 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 08:02 -0700

csiph-web