3 ms·

A Brief History of Microprogramming

47 points by quickfox 11y ago

dreamcompiler 11y ago
Great article. Microcode is indeed a different activity from assembly programming. It's the place where software and logic design come together. I built a custom bitsliced CPU for TI many years ago and wrote all the microcode myself. It was one of the most valuable experiences of my engineering education.
Animats 11y ago
They missed the Thompson-Ramo-Woolridge 530, which was the first machine with microcode in main memory. They called the microprogram words "logands", for "logic operands", and there was an logand assembler, in case someone wanted to write new microcode. This was a major milestone in microprogrammability. Or it would have been, if the machine worked. The TRW-530 was supposed to compete with the IBM 1401, but the 530 was so unreliable that only two were made. Case Tech (now CWRU) got stuck with one years after it was discontinued. It was used only to copy UNIVAC tapes to IBM tapes as part of a migration to new UNIVAC hardware. The machine at least had decent tape drives. A custom interface connected it to a UNIVAC 1107, as a total slave of the reliable 1107. The machine was so cost-reduced that they didn't have buttons on the front panel; the operator used a "magic wand" (a logic probe) to touch contacts to set bits in registers. Everybody involved in keeping it running was happy when all tapes had been converted and it could be sent off to the scrap heap. The microcode in main memory idea came from an era when CPUs were slower than memory. Today, we need three levels of caches to deal with CPUs orders of magnitude faster than main memory accesses. But it wasn't until the 1980s that mainstream CPUs decisively pulled ahead of main memory on speed. In the 1960s, memory was waiting for the CPU, not the other way round. This led to some strange dependencies on memory. The IBM 1620 had a base 10 multiplication table in main memory, loaded at boot time. That was how multiply worked. Many architectural decisions in the history of computing came from the speed and cost of main memory. Virtual memory was developed as a cost-saving measure, to allow faking more memory by paging stuff out to disk. Paging out to disk is obsolete today (unknown on mobile, painful on desktops, dumb on servers) although most major OSs still support it.
- userbinator 11y ago
  Many architectural decisions in the history of computing came from the speed and cost of main memory RISC is one of those too, and it's not a coincidence that the idea started in the early 80s when CPUs were still slower than memory.
  - capitalsigma 11y ago
    How so? The major idea behind RISC, I thought, was to implement very few opcodes and make them very fast, which seems to me to be distinct from the question of CPU vs memory speed
    - userbinator 11y ago
      "make them very fast" is based on the assumption that memory can keep up with the rate at which the CPU consumes instructions. It doesn't matter whether an instruction finishes in 1 cycle or 10 if the memory can only supply one instruction every 20 cycles. A lot of people think about data accesses when talking about memory speeds, but instruction fetches are equally if not far more important to consider --- an OoO/superscalar design can "execute around" slow reads/writes if there are other non-dependent instructions, but literally can't do anything if it runs out of instructions to execute and has to wait for more to come from memory.
    - Animats 11y ago
      The original claim for RISC was one instruction per clock. There are some nice simple RISC machines, especially from MIPS, which really work that way. But once CPUs got lookahead, parallelism, and went superscalar, they were doing more than one instruction per clock. This took far more transistors and complexity, but the Pentium Pro showed it could be done. It took 3000 engineers to design that CPU, and the Pentium II and III were essentially the same architecture. Now RISC was behind. Superscalar RISC machines were built. But the lower cost and design simplicity were gone. The motivation for RISC went with them. On top of that, most RISC machines padded all instructions out to the same length. Compared to x86, programs took 2x as much memory, which not only ran up cost, but required more memory bandwidth, one of the scarcest resources now that CPUs were pumping so many instructions.
minipci1321 11y ago
I first saw the mention of 'millicode' when HP introduced then-new PA-RISC 1.0 ISA (second half of eighties), and now Wikipedia says IBM invented the concept and the term in 1997.
p1esk 11y ago
Microprogramming is a level of abstraction in between an assembly language and a hardware description language.

47 points by quickfox 11y ago

Great article. Microcode is indeed a different activity from assembly programming. It's the place where software and logic design come together. I built a custom bitsliced CPU for TI many years ago and wrote all the microcode myself. It was one of the most valuable experiences of my engineering education.

Animats 11y ago

They missed the Thompson-Ramo-Woolridge 530, which was the first machine with microcode in main memory. They called the microprogram words "logands", for "logic operands", and there was an logand assembler, in case someone wanted to write new microcode. This was a major milestone in microprogrammability. Or it would have been, if the machine worked. The TRW-530 was supposed to compete with the IBM 1401, but the 530 was so unreliable that only two were made. Case Tech (now CWRU) got stuck with one years after it was discontinued. It was used only to copy UNIVAC tapes to IBM tapes as part of a migration to new UNIVAC hardware. The machine at least had decent tape drives. A custom interface connected it to a UNIVAC 1107, as a total slave of the reliable 1107. The machine was so cost-reduced that they didn't have buttons on the front panel; the operator used a "magic wand" (a logic probe) to touch contacts to set bits in registers. Everybody involved in keeping it running was happy when all tapes had been converted and it could be sent off to the scrap heap. The microcode in main memory idea came from an era when CPUs were slower than memory. Today, we need three levels of caches to deal with CPUs orders of magnitude faster than main memory accesses. But it wasn't until the 1980s that mainstream CPUs decisively pulled ahead of main memory on speed. In the 1960s, memory was waiting for the CPU, not the other way round. This led to some strange dependencies on memory. The IBM 1620 had a base 10 multiplication table in main memory, loaded at boot time. That was how multiply worked. Many architectural decisions in the history of computing came from the speed and cost of main memory. Virtual memory was developed as a cost-saving measure, to allow faking more memory by paging stuff out to disk. Paging out to disk is obsolete today (unknown on mobile, painful on desktops, dumb on servers) although most major OSs still support it.

userbinator 11y ago
Many architectural decisions in the history of computing came from the speed and cost of main memory RISC is one of those too, and it's not a coincidence that the idea started in the early 80s when CPUs were still slower than memory.
- capitalsigma 11y ago
  How so? The major idea behind RISC, I thought, was to implement very few opcodes and make them very fast, which seems to me to be distinct from the question of CPU vs memory speed
  - userbinator 11y ago
    "make them very fast" is based on the assumption that memory can keep up with the rate at which the CPU consumes instructions. It doesn't matter whether an instruction finishes in 1 cycle or 10 if the memory can only supply one instruction every 20 cycles. A lot of people think about data accesses when talking about memory speeds, but instruction fetches are equally if not far more important to consider --- an OoO/superscalar design can "execute around" slow reads/writes if there are other non-dependent instructions, but literally can't do anything if it runs out of instructions to execute and has to wait for more to come from memory.
  - Animats 11y ago
    The original claim for RISC was one instruction per clock. There are some nice simple RISC machines, especially from MIPS, which really work that way. But once CPUs got lookahead, parallelism, and went superscalar, they were doing more than one instruction per clock. This took far more transistors and complexity, but the Pentium Pro showed it could be done. It took 3000 engineers to design that CPU, and the Pentium II and III were essentially the same architecture. Now RISC was behind. Superscalar RISC machines were built. But the lower cost and design simplicity were gone. The motivation for RISC went with them. On top of that, most RISC machines padded all instructions out to the same length. Compared to x86, programs took 2x as much memory, which not only ran up cost, but required more memory bandwidth, one of the scarcest resources now that CPUs were pumping so many instructions.

minipci1321 11y ago

I first saw the mention of 'millicode' when HP introduced then-new PA-RISC 1.0 ISA (second half of eighties), and now Wikipedia says IBM invented the concept and the term in 1997.

p1esk 11y ago

Microprogramming is a level of abstraction in between an assembly language and a hardware description language.