Poster | Thread |
g01df1sh
| |
multi core Posted on 6-Jun-2016 22:55:43
| | [ #1 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 16-Apr-2009 Posts: 1777
From: UK | | |
|
| If and when Amigaos gets dual core will it then be a lot easier to add quad core if a cpu come out with that many cores? or will it be another long up hill stuggle? _________________ A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr Elbox empty Power Tower RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC Wii with Amiga emulation Vampire v4 SA |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
agami
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 3:17:03
| | [ #2 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jun-2008 Posts: 1637
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| @g01df1sh
Based on the little bits of info that have been shared with the public and the comments of knowledgable forum patrons I'd say that the first incarnation of multi-core support will be an adaptation of AmigaOS 4.x to use two (2) cores with minor impact to application compatibility.
This approach makes sense as there is a very small OS development team and very few application developers in the ecosystem. But not breaking compatibility will hold back from implementing a more scalable solution that would work seamlessly on four or even more cores.
Going from 2-core support to 4-core support may take just as long or longer than going from 1-core to 2-core, but I don't think it will be because of the engineering challenges. It'll be more to do with limited development resources getting moved to work on other things. Lets face it, there's many other things that need to be completed/improved in AmigaOS 4.x _________________ All the way, with 68k |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
g01df1sh
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 7:39:16
| | [ #3 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 16-Apr-2009 Posts: 1777
From: UK | | |
|
| @agami
Yes I agree I'm not fussed about multi core. Memory protection would more usefull and a new gui for workbench. _________________ A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr Elbox empty Power Tower RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC Wii with Amiga emulation Vampire v4 SA |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 8:06:38
| | [ #4 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6321
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @g01df1sh
you are aware that implementing SMP and expecially MP would break compatibility so that 68k software will no longer run directly but only in UAE? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
olegil
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 9:07:36
| | [ #5 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Aug-2003 Posts: 5895
From: Work | | |
|
| @OlafS25
mp would break compatibility yes, but smp doesn't have to. to fully utilise all cores at all times is not possible without sacrificing legacy stuff, but that isn't the most important thing. software needs to be changed to really benefit from parallel execution anyway, and utilising many cores in a singles program is often very difficult. _________________ This weeks pet peeve: Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
olegil
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 9:14:59
| | [ #6 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Aug-2003 Posts: 5895
From: Work | | |
|
| @g01df1sh
the little we've heard about multiprocessing in aos has not been limited to two cores at all, but how much of that was speculation and how much is actual reality is still unknown to me. Unfortunately, in the x86 and arm markets, 4 low power cores (or threads, in some cases) seems to be the sensible mimimum, so all camps should have multiprocessing as one of the main goalsin my opinion. _________________ This weeks pet peeve: Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 10:48:55
| | [ #7 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @olegil
what i think smp on a 32bit Os with a 64 bit kernel will not break the compatibility. I sow it on linux ppc where example : Mate is using 64bit smp kernel but the Os is 32 bit . and here i ca run all the 32bit sofware without problems and where the program will need more threads es: firefox it will use the other core for eg play a video or decoding a js. The limit of 32bit os is on linux it can assign max 2gb of ram for every task .
Different is on Fedora 64 where all is 64bit and yes programs will be need to recompiled or changed in source. On 64bit os there is not ram limit for tasks ... and yes the performance is really really better.
I think the best way for now on AmigaOs will be have 64bit kernel and 32bit Os in this option you can have 2048 core without problems Last edited by tlosm on 07-Jun-2016 at 01:19 PM. Last edited by tlosm on 07-Jun-2016 at 10:52 AM. Last edited by tlosm on 07-Jun-2016 at 10:51 AM.
_________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tomppeli
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 14:58:51
| | [ #8 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 18-Jun-2004 Posts: 1652
From: Home land of Santa, sauna, sisu and salmiakki | | |
|
| @g01df1sh
The most of Amiga software is lightweight and not multi threaded so I bet people won't notice much difference between multi and single core. It's different on Windows because of heavy virus executors and software firewalls.
Speaking of memory protection it looks like many people on AW.net seems to believe in somekind of magic memory protection which fixes all bugs automatically by itself. The only memory protection that exists is kernel and user space separation and address translation. AmigaOS have had address translation since 4.0-developer-prerelease. The only thing is memf_private is not enabled for data areas so one can trash data of the system making it "go crazy". Even Windows 10 crashes into blue screen so any memory protection doesn't prevent that. Nowadays software is stable because of better programming tools finding more bugs and object-oriented programming making it harder to introduce memory trashing bugs when it's easy on assembly and C. _________________ Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE "Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 15:23:15
| | [ #9 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6321
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Tomppeli
it depends if SMP works automatically or needs adapted software. I read about experiments with it on Aros and they worked on getting as much as possible on second core so that the first core can concentrate on the main program and not slows down. The concept they were working on for AOS would have meant that the second core only is used by adapted software so as long you do not use such software you would not experience any difference (as I understood it).
MP does not solve all problems of course but would be needed for security reasons and would make all run more stable but it would require bigger changes and certainly break many old programs. Last edited by OlafS25 on 07-Jun-2016 at 03:24 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Kronos
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 15:35:33
| | [ #10 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 8-Mar-2003 Posts: 2553
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @g01df1sh
If you have proper SMP, you have proper SMP and it will run on any given number of cores.
If you only have an halfassed not-really-S-SMP, it will be crap on any given number of cores > 1.
If you get it implemented by Hyperion it will manage to be crap on any given number of cores _________________ - We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet - blame Canada |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
g01df1sh
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 20:58:45
| | [ #11 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 16-Apr-2009 Posts: 1777
From: UK | | |
|
| @Kronos
Thats a bit harsh im sure the developers are trying there best to impliment a good solution. _________________ A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr Elbox empty Power Tower RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC Wii with Amiga emulation Vampire v4 SA |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Aslak3
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 21:34:20
| | [ #12 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 21-Aug-2012 Posts: 268
From: Southampton, UK | | |
|
| @OlafS25 Quote:
MP does not solve all problems of course but would be needed for security reasons and would make all run more stable but it would require bigger changes and certainly break many old programs. |
From my experience a few years ago of coming back to AmigaOS after more then 15 year absence, the biggest culture shock was by far the lack of memory protection. After using Linux and OS X systems for those intervening years, MP quickly becomes something that you just take for granted; it's a far far bigger differentiator then SMP and 64bit. _________________ Blog |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
iggy
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 7-Jun-2016 23:40:42
| | [ #13 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 20-Oct-2010 Posts: 1175
From: Bear, Delaware USA | | |
|
| @g01df1sh
Quote:
Well, what they have promised doesn't seem possible, so I'd tend to agree with Kronos that whatever compromise they implement is likely to be ugly.Last edited by iggy on 08-Jun-2016 at 12:21 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
ne_one
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 8-Jun-2016 5:01:30
| | [ #14 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 13-Jun-2005 Posts: 905
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Quote:
you are aware that implementing SMP and expecially MP would break compatibility so that 68k software will no longer run directly but only in UAE? |
Or in a sandbox.
Either way, all of this seems completely backasswards.
Adding SMP and MP to a legacy system with limited active application development is pointless.
There are already a number of options for preserving compatibility and very few applications will be updated to benefit from SMP or MP.
So what's the point of this exercise? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
agami
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 8-Jun-2016 5:27:25
| | [ #15 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jun-2008 Posts: 1637
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| @SMP-talk
The traditional concept of SMP becomes very inefficient once you start to scale past 4 cores, and so it has long since been abandoned by modern kernels. What is implemented is a hypervisor that schedules tasks to the processors in conjunction with allocating memory and maintaining a virtual address space and NUMA.
With a team of 100 OS developers AmigaOS could get there in a couple of years. With the present resources... you do the math.
P.S. Compatibility with legacy should have only been done through emulation. Right now legacy compatibility is holding the OS hostage. _________________ All the way, with 68k |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
agami
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 8-Jun-2016 5:29:15
| | [ #16 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jun-2008 Posts: 1637
From: Melbourne, Australia | | |
|
| @ne_one
Quote:
So what's the point of this exercise? |
Survival_________________ All the way, with 68k |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
PhantomInterrogative
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 8-Jun-2016 11:48:10
| | [ #17 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 10-Sep-2004 Posts: 809
From: The Interrogative Lair | | |
|
| @agami
Quote:
agami wrote: @SMP-talk
P.S. Compatibility with legacy should have only been done through emulation. Right now legacy compatibility is holding the OS hostage. |
Exactly!
Clipped from another thread... Quote:
I've used WinUAE quite a bit in addition to my (now sold) SAM460ex. In terms of using old software, using UAE has been a better experience for me than using Petunia in OS4.x. Why not break compatibility in OS4.2? Why not have a 64bit OS4.2? As long as we have a nice version of UAE, we should be able to use older programs. MorphOS uses a sandbox. AROS uses UAE. Why shouldn't AmigaOS4.2 use a sandbox/UAE for legacy software? I would think that would be simpler than worrying that a 20 year old program isn't going to work with 4.2. Many 20 year old programs don't even work with 4.1 without using UAE. Even when 2.04 came out, it broke compatibility with many 1.3 applications and games. |
_________________ I sold my SAM460ex lite... waiting for money to buy a Raspberry Pi... or a Classic A1000 with Buffee... or an A1222... and OS4.3 FE update 11 |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 8-Jun-2016 15:05:26
| | [ #18 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11180
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @agami
And to think. It looked bad enough when the PC platform was held back by DOS. According to a friend even todays Intel chips are ever so slightly crippled by the need to run an old version of DOS. But who does that anymore?
Anyway, the thing is, 68K programs ARE emulated anyway so this never should have been an issue. OS3 has been modifed so much to form OS4 it should be a shock this even turns up. But I think they made it too close. As it stands it's up to the level that a 68K interrupt is emulated inside an actual PPC interrupt. That's too far! Who does that!?
All they needed to do IMHO was to emulate the OS and structures and run a micro kernel as Exec with all the programs sanboxed together. Seperate 68K from the OS. But more tightly intergrated than UAE. And with transparent operation. Then just update the OS to current standards. A lot of things in AmigaOS should have been replaced and it should be in real OOP now as well. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 8-Jun-2016 15:48:17
| | [ #19 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6321
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @agami
the question is what do the users want?
Some would like to have a modernized OS up to date with SMP, MP and so on and accept needed changes some would like to have new features but the current concept. In doubt they would not like the changes some are more or less happy with current situation and want more software
I do not know how the percentages are? A really modernized OS would break both 68k and parts of PPC software. Certainly not everything will be available in sources so no longer run. Will people then not start to complain? Any UAE concept will feel different. As a example Arexx was added by copying original libs as far as I know. That tricks will no longer work then. Last edited by OlafS25 on 08-Jun-2016 at 03:49 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: multi core Posted on 8-Jun-2016 15:51:10
| | [ #20 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6321
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @PhantomInterrogative
jf you add f.e. MP not only 68k will be affected but also PPC software |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|