3 ms·
A number of people have expressed concerns about making the relatively simple protocol more and more complicated in the name of performance. This looks like it'
by turminal 3y ago
A number of people have expressed concerns about making the relatively simple protocol more and more complicated in the name of performance. This looks like it's going to be their "Ha, told you so!" moment.
- notpachet 3y agoIt reminds me of Meltdown/Spectre: you have a pipe, and instructions need to flow through it in a single file line. Let's increase performance by allowing things to be sent/processed out-of-order!
- insanitybit 3y agoThat's a good example, because it would be an incredibly bad decision to drop speculative execution since it leads to a massive performance improvement.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gruez 3y agotechnically the issue is speculative execution, not superscalar execution (ie. "allowing things to be sent/processed out-of-order!"). Most high performance processors have both, but you can have one without the other.
- notpachet 3y agoTrue, fair point.
- hotpotamus 3y agoMy problem is that it often seems like significant complexity is added in order to chase marginal performance gains. I suppose performance is relatively easy to measure while complexity is not.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]