On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 4:35 AM <tlaro...@kergis.com> wrote: > Is the number of TC fixed, or is it at least one TC and the number > can increase if needed (or, put it differently, can a AC, if needed, > switch to a TC and vice-versa)?
Fixed, I believe, at boot time? I no longer recall. Nemo and lsub did experiment with dynamic counts, but I came from an HPC/LinuxBios background: nodes boot in seconds, so I did not worry about "fixed at boot time" type issues. Want to change configuration? reboot. Starting a new job? reboot. And so on. > Had you the opportunity to measure how "bad" some application > workloads could be because the number of TC---after the > initialization period---exceeded largely the number of AC with a not zero > pointer? > That would be good to do, now that we have machines with hundreds of cores. > Theoretically, could a machine with different kind of cores, perhaps with > differing architectures (specialized cores) but sharing at least > with a common MMU read/write (data) pages (for the kernel shared > data: locks and so on) be possible, with a system such as NIX in fact > scheduling to the matching kind of AC core for the task to be run? You have that already, nowadays, starting with big/little, and moving to the intel CPUs with widely varying core types. Esperanto has specialized cores too. I think having incompatible architectures is already there, too, with GPUs and smart nics like the AWS and Google ones. Well, hmm, that kind of "sharing with compatible MMU" was started by quadrics in the 90s, so it's not new. This has been a very interesting discussion, thanks all. My offer remains: if anyone wants to revive NIX, I am happy to help. ron ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T7692a612f26c8ec5-M7cfd8da69529213fcf4e109f Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
