6 ms·

This is a 2015 story that I remember reading, then. Google news search shows only a couple articles this year about Rex Computing and only one tiny bit of news,

This is a 2015 story that I remember reading, then. Google news search shows only a couple articles this year about Rex Computing and only one tiny bit of news, that they're at tapeout. That's probably par for the course for a startup creating product (or prototype) one. http://semiengineering.com/power-centric-chip-architectures/ http://semiengineering.com/power-centric-chip-architectures/ also a speaking engagement: http://insidehpc.com/2016/01/call-for-papers-supercomputing-frontiers-in-singapore/ http://insidehpc.com/2016/01/call-for-papers-supercomputing-... and a comment elsewhere that mentions another approach: the "Mill CPU of Mill Computing" As I recollect (perhaps quite wrongly) Itanium (VLIW) failed because compiler-writers couldn't really be bothered or couldn't mount the learning curve. So I'm most curious about what progress is being made on the compiler side.

smaddox 10y ago
Yeah, something like this is very much needed, but it's not the hard part. The software is the hard part. The software is the reason we have the multiple levels of cache we have now. Without solving the software challenges, there can be no challenger for the existing architectures. It's interesting to note that convolutional neural nets (CNNs) are one solution to the software challenge. It's an imperfect solution, in the sense that CNNs are not as general purpose (at the same efficiency) and have strict data requirements for training, but it is a solution, and the big N are investing heavily to the point of designing ASICs. Eventually, though, we need to solve the software problem. That will require rethinking programming languages.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  True. I shoulda added "so to speak", since this is a still more extreme approach and might simply break any compiler/language combination we have, as you say.
  - trsohmers 10y ago
    While we have been exploring some ideas on how to have better programming approaches to address the unique features of our architecture, we have from the beginning though that we would be required to have some level of portability for existing applications. As of right now, we support standard C/C++ that runs through our Clang+LLVM backend, with the ability to support any language that has a LLVM frontend. Personally, I find the actor model to be the easiest existing way to take advantage of things like our network on chip and having hard time guarantees on memory movement. That being said, right now our focus is on C and C++ along with our API and custom library ports.
- dnautics 10y ago
  Having written programs for this iteration of the REX Neo architecture, the architecture is not so dramatically different that programming languages will have to be rewritten. I'm not the smartest programmer in the world and I was able to figure out the assembly language fairly easily. Some concepts, like how to manage concurrent data processing and thread communications, need to be handled carefully, but that's more at the level of 'standard library' than the compiler. There is a clear pathway to getting C working on the architecture, and a reasonable direction (that will need some fleshing out) to getting performance-enhancing optimization of something like LLVM IR.
  - white-flame 10y ago
    I wouldn't expect the assembly language level to be too far off from the common paradigms. Where I'd expect the software challenges to be would be in managing large amounts of memory, if the application programmer must manage shuffling data between the local scratchpad, specific locations in foreign scratchpads that must be (manually?) DMA'd around, and DRAMs.
    - trsohmers 10y ago
      Our whole goal, as talked about in the software section of our website (and the ACM paper linked in it), is to have the scratchpads be entirely automated by our toolchain. While we want to allow for especially adventurous programmers to have full freedom with the scratchpads, existing and future programs written in C/C++/other languages supported in the future will handle memory allocation identically (from the programmers perspective) as existing architectures. One other thing to point out is that our actually addressing of a cores local scratchpad, as well as "foreign" scratchpads of other cores on the same chip and/or any other attached chip is handled exactly the same. All memory operations are handled through the exact same load/store instructions as part of a global flat address map that is the same for all cores in a system (one or multiple chips interconnected).
Quequau 10y ago
I recall an interview with someone formerly in upper management for the Itanium development project where he acknowledged that the most significant factor in the demise of Itanium was the exclusionary pricing structure Intel imposed on them.
trsohmers 10y ago
You are correct that we have already taped out, though we haven't made any announcements yet, though will be talking publicly about it in the future with a big focus on the "magic" on the software side. You can read my comments on the Mill architecture elsewhere on HN (not a fan of stack machines), but my biggest disappointment in them is the fact that they have been working on Mill for ~10 years with a team ranging of 5 to 20 (from what I have heard) and have yet to get to silicon, while we have gone from a complete custom architectural idea to tapeout in ~11 months from closing our first seed funding. The big technical failure point for Itanium (in my opinion) is the fact that Intel took the relatively pure VLIW research by Josh Fisher @ HP Labs and tried to add a ridiculous number of features (and attempted x86 compatibility) that impacted the ability to statically schedule instructions. The resulting bastard architecture Intel called "EPIC" (rather than VLIW) had a very difficult job in getting the compiler to generate instruction parallel code since Intel added a huge amount of indeterminism into the architecture that goes against the original VLIW tenets. If your compiler has to assume the worst case latency for all instructions and memory operations, you are going to have a bad time.
- white-flame 10y ago
  > while we have gone from a complete custom architectural idea to tapeout in ~11 months from closing our first seed funding. To my understanding, the Mill project is not financed. They're enthusiasts working for sweat equity, and are likely going to seek (non-controlling?) investment to finally hit silicon when they're ready. For the scope of what they're doing, I think it's a defensible enough approach. It's not something that can be created in evolutionary stages; all designs of all parts need to be working together properly for there to be benefit from any part, and it's quite complex while also trying out tons of novel designs. (and the Mill isn't stack-based or stack-related. It's basically a crossbar of recent ALU/Load results being fed into further ALU/Store inputs in parallel. The belt is just some way to represent the set of recent results.)
- gpderetta 10y ago
  Itanium failed for the same reason every other VLIW failed as a general purpose CPU: there just isn't enough information a compile time to model the dynamic properties of a program. In fact many of Itanium additions (strange instruction packing, alias disambiguation hardware) were attempts at overcoming this issue. The only moderately successful general purpose VLIW are Conroe and the related Denver, and they use a runtime translation layer to collect the required dynamic informations.

smaddox 10y ago

Yeah, something like this is very much needed, but it's not the hard part. The software is the hard part. The software is the reason we have the multiple levels of cache we have now. Without solving the software challenges, there can be no challenger for the existing architectures. It's interesting to note that convolutional neural nets (CNNs) are one solution to the software challenge. It's an imperfect solution, in the sense that CNNs are not as general purpose (at the same efficiency) and have strict data requirements for training, but it is a solution, and the big N are investing heavily to the point of designing ASICs. Eventually, though, we need to solve the software problem. That will require rethinking programming languages.

Nomentatus 10y ago
True. I shoulda added "so to speak", since this is a still more extreme approach and might simply break any compiler/language combination we have, as you say.
- trsohmers 10y ago
  While we have been exploring some ideas on how to have better programming approaches to address the unique features of our architecture, we have from the beginning though that we would be required to have some level of portability for existing applications. As of right now, we support standard C/C++ that runs through our Clang+LLVM backend, with the ability to support any language that has a LLVM frontend. Personally, I find the actor model to be the easiest existing way to take advantage of things like our network on chip and having hard time guarantees on memory movement. That being said, right now our focus is on C and C++ along with our API and custom library ports.
dnautics 10y ago
Having written programs for this iteration of the REX Neo architecture, the architecture is not so dramatically different that programming languages will have to be rewritten. I'm not the smartest programmer in the world and I was able to figure out the assembly language fairly easily. Some concepts, like how to manage concurrent data processing and thread communications, need to be handled carefully, but that's more at the level of 'standard library' than the compiler. There is a clear pathway to getting C working on the architecture, and a reasonable direction (that will need some fleshing out) to getting performance-enhancing optimization of something like LLVM IR.
- white-flame 10y ago
  I wouldn't expect the assembly language level to be too far off from the common paradigms. Where I'd expect the software challenges to be would be in managing large amounts of memory, if the application programmer must manage shuffling data between the local scratchpad, specific locations in foreign scratchpads that must be (manually?) DMA'd around, and DRAMs.
  - trsohmers 10y ago
    Our whole goal, as talked about in the software section of our website (and the ACM paper linked in it), is to have the scratchpads be entirely automated by our toolchain. While we want to allow for especially adventurous programmers to have full freedom with the scratchpads, existing and future programs written in C/C++/other languages supported in the future will handle memory allocation identically (from the programmers perspective) as existing architectures. One other thing to point out is that our actually addressing of a cores local scratchpad, as well as "foreign" scratchpads of other cores on the same chip and/or any other attached chip is handled exactly the same. All memory operations are handled through the exact same load/store instructions as part of a global flat address map that is the same for all cores in a system (one or multiple chips interconnected).

Quequau 10y ago

I recall an interview with someone formerly in upper management for the Itanium development project where he acknowledged that the most significant factor in the demise of Itanium was the exclusionary pricing structure Intel imposed on them.

trsohmers 10y ago

You are correct that we have already taped out, though we haven't made any announcements yet, though will be talking publicly about it in the future with a big focus on the "magic" on the software side. You can read my comments on the Mill architecture elsewhere on HN (not a fan of stack machines), but my biggest disappointment in them is the fact that they have been working on Mill for ~10 years with a team ranging of 5 to 20 (from what I have heard) and have yet to get to silicon, while we have gone from a complete custom architectural idea to tapeout in ~11 months from closing our first seed funding. The big technical failure point for Itanium (in my opinion) is the fact that Intel took the relatively pure VLIW research by Josh Fisher @ HP Labs and tried to add a ridiculous number of features (and attempted x86 compatibility) that impacted the ability to statically schedule instructions. The resulting bastard architecture Intel called "EPIC" (rather than VLIW) had a very difficult job in getting the compiler to generate instruction parallel code since Intel added a huge amount of indeterminism into the architecture that goes against the original VLIW tenets. If your compiler has to assume the worst case latency for all instructions and memory operations, you are going to have a bad time.

white-flame 10y ago
> while we have gone from a complete custom architectural idea to tapeout in ~11 months from closing our first seed funding. To my understanding, the Mill project is not financed. They're enthusiasts working for sweat equity, and are likely going to seek (non-controlling?) investment to finally hit silicon when they're ready. For the scope of what they're doing, I think it's a defensible enough approach. It's not something that can be created in evolutionary stages; all designs of all parts need to be working together properly for there to be benefit from any part, and it's quite complex while also trying out tons of novel designs. (and the Mill isn't stack-based or stack-related. It's basically a crossbar of recent ALU/Load results being fed into further ALU/Store inputs in parallel. The belt is just some way to represent the set of recent results.)
gpderetta 10y ago
Itanium failed for the same reason every other VLIW failed as a general purpose CPU: there just isn't enough information a compile time to model the dynamic properties of a program. In fact many of Itanium additions (strange instruction packing, alias disambiguation hardware) were attempts at overcoming this issue. The only moderately successful general purpose VLIW are Conroe and the related Denver, and they use a runtime translation layer to collect the required dynamic informations.