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


Groups > comp.compilers > #811

Re: Green Compiler ?

From "Nils M Holm" <nmh@t3x.org>
Newsgroups comp.compilers
Subject Re: Green Compiler ?
Date 2012-12-28 09:11 +0100
Organization Compilers Central
Message-ID <12-12-027@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References <12-12-010@comp.compilers> <12-12-013@comp.compilers> <12-12-023@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw


Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> "Nils M Holm" <nmh@t3x.org> writes:
> >In principle, I would say that higher execution speed equals more
> >green-ness. Less time spent dissipating heat means less energy
> >consumed.
>
> If a computer runs only a given set of batch-style programs a given
> set of times, yes.  But that's not how computers are used.  E.g.,
> there are games that consume all the resources they are given.  If the
> game code runs faster, it just means that the game has better FPS, not
> that the computer consumes less energy.  There are also anti-virus
> programs etc., and even for batch-style programs, if they run faster,
> one often runs them more often.  So it's not so easy.

So you are basically arguing that people always try to get the maximum
out of their resources and therefore faster code is worse. Indeed, if
this should be the case, you are right.

Your first example was games. Why does a game *have to* use the
maximum number of frames per second? When a given number of frames per
second is sufficient, in the sense that additional frames will not
make the video output any smoother, why increase the frame rate
further? Let the program sleep between frames. In this case fast code
can sleep between frames, slow code can't.

Same for virus scanner: why run them more often?

So I would argue that the issue you raise is a psychological one rather
than a technical one. When people always want to get the maximum out
of their resources, then there is no way to reduce power consumption,
except, maybe, by creating *slower* processors.

Creating slower compiler output would not help, because it will just
burn more CPU cycles to achieve less. Faster code is better, because
it achieves the same in less time. E.g.: a slow interpreter can run
the same algorithm as a fast, compiled executable. Both achieve the
same on the same CPU, but the interpreted code takes longer and hence
wastes energy. So faster code saves energy.

Of course, this point assumes that people want a fixed outcome at the
least cost, and I see that this is often not the case. It seems to
get more and more interesting though, with all those "green" processors,
and other "green" equipment around.

Bottom line: we can create the tools to save energy, but if people do
not want to save energy, nothing will help.

--
Nils M Holm  < n m h @ t 3 x . o r g >  www.t3x.org

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