To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So, what is the solution, because the problem exist?
Processors have growing number of core and those core are not that much faster, there is just more of them. Normal code will run only on one of the, taking advantages of only 1/${number_of_core} of the power. "real world" applications need this power. I am not talking about IM client or your favorite text editor, but application used to do what a computer is aim to do, computation.
Edited 2009-10-13 20:20 UTC
Wow. I'm absolutely amazed how someone could use EDUCATION as a reason to doubt someone's intelligence. You know, before I went back to grad school, I worked for nearly a decade developing Linux drivers, X11 drivers, designing chips, developing web sites, and among other things, writing parallel applications for real products used in the real world. So I also have plenty of practical experience.
But you probably wouldn't know much about practical experience either, being an uneducated toothless hick from the backwoods of the Appalachian mountains, living in a tattered wooden shack and using readin' ritin' and 'rithimitic books from the 1850's.
Ha! How do you feel now? You don't like it when the ad hominem attack comes in your direction, do you? You don't like it that I assume you're an idiot because you make ignorant comments, do you?
And really, I would love to see someone make a real, logical argument that explains why system-side knowledge of CPU resource allocation is "useless". Or why developing a tool that makes it more convenient for developers to use parallel resources is "useless". What do you consider to NOT be useless anyhow?
I can't help it. Sometimes I just HAVE to feed the trolls.
Edited 2009-10-13 20:27 UTC
But you probably wouldn't know much about practical experience either, being an uneducated toothless hick from the backwoods of the Appalachian mountains, living in a tattered wooden shack and using readin' ritin' and 'rithimitic books from the 1850's.
Ha! How do you feel now? You don't like it when the ad hominem attack comes in your direction, do you? You don't like it that I assume you're an idiot because you make ignorant comments, do you?
And really, I would love to see someone make a real, logical argument that explains why system-side knowledge of CPU resource allocation is "useless". Or why developing a tool that makes it more convenient for developers to use parallel resources is "useless". What do you consider to NOT be useless anyhow?
I can't help it. Sometimes I just HAVE to feed the trolls.
What's area are you focusing on in Grad School?
And, how has the transition been back after being gone so long? [I'm contemplating a masters or two and want to know]





Member since:
2008-10-04
Being a Ph.D. student specializing in computer architecture, I have experience that tells me that something like GCD can be very helpful. It's not a slam-dunk solution, but it is a nice solution to the problem of system-wide resource allocation. Before GCD (or equivalent), parallel processing people either assumed they would have the machine to themselves, or they would have to guess about what other processes are going to be running at the same time.
The fact that you are a Ph.D. student specializing in computer architecture is the exact proof that this is basically a useless solution.
We've seen this kind of nonsense spewed from the mouths of KNOW-NOTHING-IDIOTS like yourself over the decades concering GUI's,Filesystems,Computer Hardware/Software,AI,ect,ect,ect, and 90% of the time you clowns have been *FLAT-OUT-WRONG* about both what the problem was and the soloution to the problem.
Edited 2009-10-13 20:14 UTC