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

Groups > comp.compilers > #808

Re: Green Compiler ?

Show all headers | View raw

Peter Dassow <z80eu@arcor.de> wrote:
>> Abid <abidmuslim@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> It seems that the Power Wall is becoming a major  issue, especially for High
>>> Performance Computing.

(snip, I wrote)
>> It should be energy, not power.

> Efficiency is NOT equal to power consumption.

Yes. As I noted, energy not power.

There is a fundamental tradeoff between speed and power.

It is pretty easy to see for CMOS, (well, until recently) where most
of the current is used to charge/discharge capacitors.  More current,
more power at constant supply voltage, charges the capacitors faster.
The energy stored in a capacitor is C*V*V/2, and that energy is
disippated when a gate is turned on or off.

For bipolar logic, such as TTL, it is the charge in the depletion
region that must be removed. Again more current (at fixed Vcc) will do
it faster. There are three families of TTL that differ only in their
supply current and speed.

> You can do calculations (e.g. divide something) in more
> than one way, means by using the "fastest" operations, or by
> using the "best" algorithm, means using the most efficient
> opcodes (that is NOT using the fastest operations,
> e.g. shifting/rotating bits), e.g. using a DIVIDE opcode
> instead which can probably cost more clock cycles.

Until recently, CMOS had almost zero quiescent current.  The current
was almost directly related to gates switching, and so power directly
related to the rate of gate switching.

More recently, at the smallest feature size and gate oxide thickness,
quantum tunneling through the gate oxide has become a significant
current (power) drain.

Even more, the timing characteristics of transistors are changing:

http://www.technion.ac.il/~sbeer/publications/p3.pdf


> That does not mean just to make it slow, you should still
> choose the most efficient way (means doing something with fewer
> opcodes, regardless of how many clock cycles are used for per
> opcode).  But I'm not sure this kind of optimization
> would save a significant percentage compared to an clock cycle
> optimized binary.

ECL and for the most part TTL, run at constant power. Faster
computation (everything else constant) means less energy used.

As above, for CMOS until recently, energy is related to the gates
switching. Processors designs have improved in not using (usually not
even clocking) parts that aren't needed. Turn off the floating point
unit when it isn't needed.

A divide instruction might take the same amount of time as a shift,
but consume much more energy (power * time).

-- glen

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

Thread

Green Compiler ? Abid <abidmuslim@gmail.com> - 2012-12-20 02:00 -0800
  Re: Green Compiler ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-23 08:18 +0000
    Re: Green Compiler ? Peter Dassow <z80eu@arcor.de> - 2012-12-26 19:31 +0100
      Re: Green Compiler ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-28 03:09 +0000
      Re: Green Compiler ? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-12-28 08:35 +0100
        Re: Green Compiler ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-28 16:14 +0000
        Re: Green Compiler ? Peter Dassow <z80eu@arcor.de> - 2012-12-29 09:35 +0100
          Re: Green Compiler ? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-12-30 08:14 +0100
            Re: Green Compiler ? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2012-12-31 01:24 -0500
              Re: Green Compiler ? "Jonathan Thornburg" <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu> - 2013-01-02 04:09 +0000
                Re: Green Compiler ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 18:29 +0000
              Re: Green Compiler ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 05:11 +0000
              Re: Green Compiler ? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2013-01-02 07:29 +0100
                Re: Green Compiler ? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-01-02 19:52 +0000
                Re: Green Compiler ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2013-01-04 08:59 -0600
  Re: Green Compiler ? "Nils M Holm" <nmh@t3x.org> - 2012-12-23 10:01 +0100
    Re: Green Compiler ? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-12-24 05:16 +0100
    Re: Green Compiler ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-12-27 13:36 +0000
      Re: Green Compiler ? "Nils M Holm" <nmh@t3x.org> - 2012-12-28 09:11 +0100
        Re: Green Compiler ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-12-28 16:57 +0000
        Re: Green Compiler ? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2012-12-28 12:57 -0500
          Re: Green Compiler ? "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-12-30 09:22 +0100
    Re: Green Compiler ? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2012-12-27 21:59 -0600
  Re: Green Compiler ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-12-28 10:42 -0500

csiph-web