4 ms·
If you assemble a 9+ stage pipeline, you may reach a point where you produce approximately one baby each month.
by basementcat 7y ago
If you assemble a 9+ stage pipeline, you may reach a point where you produce approximately one baby each month.
- wwweston 7y agoSweet. The baby-in-a-month problem is reduced to assembling and priming a nine-stage pipeline in a month!
- phkahler 7y agoEven then they are "working" independently. It's not a pipeline that passes the baby from one to the next. That's just plain parallelism. Either way it would do nothing to latency and so would not get the current one done any sooner.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- znpy 7y agoThat's throughput, not latency.
- majormajor 7y agoMost companies have more things they want to do then they can do in the next 6 months. So if you increase throughput without latency, you can still get more of those projects done. Even if you're still doing them all inefficiently. It's ugly, but "don't hire more people because we'll be less efficient" often runs into this ugly "but we need more total output, not more efficiency" wall.
- blattimwind 7y agoYes, that's exactly the point of pipelining.
- manigandham 7y agoThat's not a 9 stage pipeline, it's 9 separate single stage pipelines.
- bobsil1 7y agoMassively parallel Baby Processing Units (BPUs)
- joejerryronnie 7y agoIf you implement QBPUs (Quantum Baby Processing Units), you could theoretically produce infinite babies. Of course, we're perpetually 10 years away from working QBPUs.