On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Sam Watkins <s...@nipl.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:50:28PM -0700, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> > The mention that "... the overhead of cache coherence restricts the ability >> > to scale up to even 80 cores" is also eye openeing. If we're at aprox 8 >> > cores today, thats only 5 yrs away (if we double cores every >> > 1.5 yrs). > > Sharing the memory between processes is a stupid approach to multi-processing > / > multi-threading. Modern popular computer architecture and software design is > fairly much uniformly stupid.
It is. But what's your proposal on code sharing? All those PC registers belonging to different cores have to point somewhere. Is that somewhere is not shared memory the code has to be put there for every single core, right? Thanks, Roman.
