• About Jakob Engblom and this blog
Observations from Uppsala Computer Simulation, Virtual Platforms, Embedded Programming, Multicore and More (by Jakob Engblom)

Parallel Processing Requires Parallel IO

2007 October 1 11:05 / 2 Comments / Jakob

One common use-case for multicore processing on the desktop and elsewhere is “doing many things at the same time”. You could be running many user-interface programs at once, like the “typical today’s teenager template” of tens of IM clients, web sessions, email conversations, music and video players, downloading movies, etc. Or it is a more business-like background indexing of harddrives, backups being taken, downloading large business files, compiling software, updating source code repositories, etc.

I have been doing both of these modes to some extent, and the main problem with them at least on a PC is that while the processors might be good at multitasking and sharing the CPU load, my IO system is annoyingly non-parallel.

At least on my laptop running Windows Vista, any task that accesses the hard drive intensely (compiling, updating source tree, indexing files) blocks any other task that would also be hard drive intense. For some reason, that includes Microsoft Powerpoint and Outlook. So being productive while my machine churns in the background is pretty hard.

In general, this means that any multicore device intended to do many different things at once will have to have IO that is similarly parallelizable. And that means working hard to avoid any choke points where one stream of data can disturb another. The typical PC of today is not that system, with lots of bottlenecks where “all” data have to pass. Most embedded multicore SoCs appear at least to have more direct connections from IO to cores, but I have not seen how well it works in practice.

This small rant was written while everything else was locked-up competing for my hard drive. I want a parallel fast disk system in my laptop! Pain!

Tweet
Posted in: desktop software, multicore computer architecture, multicore software / Tagged: disk, I/O, office 2007, PC architecture, Vista, Windows

2 Thoughts on “Parallel Processing Requires Parallel IO”

  1. Khazret Sapenov on 2008 March 30 at 06:42 said:

    I believe, it all should go to implementing mainframe-like architecture with multiple backup IO channels and disk subsystems, only for desktop PC.

  2. Jakob on 2008 March 30 at 20:55 said:

    Quite right. That is one likely way to use lots of silicon space… with the possible issue that you might run out of pins to push to IO over, leading to physically-induced conflicts and bottlenecks once integration has been pushed sufficiently far. That’s why serial buses are so important today, provides us with more bandwidth per pin. You also need to consider IO throughout the system architecture — the reason a PC has problems is not because of CPU bandwitdh deficiencies, but an imperfect system design built for low cost and flexibility rather than maximal streaming performance.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post →

Recent Posts

  • Wind River Blog: Simics 4.8 is Here
  • A Few Electrons too Many
  • Wind River Blog: Visuality NQ CIFS Server on Simics
  • Everything in the Cloud?
  • Wind River Blog: TCF and Simics
  • Off-Topic: Moving Bad Piggies Save Games
  • Two Cores, Four Cores, Eight Cores – Mobile Variety
  • Bliss: Failing to Pivot for Ideology
  • Wind River Blog and Movie: Demo of Simics Debugging
  • Simulation vs Reality in Schlock Mercenary
  • Programming like Lego
  • Does ISA Matter for Performance?
  • Wind River Blog: Debugging Simics using Simics
  • Wind River Blog: Simics and Flying Piggies
  • Dragons can be Useful – when AT Models Make Sense

Categories

  • appearances (30)
  • articles (21)
  • blogging (10)
  • books (6)
  • business issues (31)
  • computer architecture (35)
  • conferences (34)
  • EDA (50)
    • ESL (35)
  • embedded (78)
    • embedded software (57)
    • embedded systeme (50)
  • general research (6)
  • history (32)
    • general history (7)
    • history of computing (26)
  • off-topic (94)
    • biking (5)
    • board games (1)
    • computer games (3)
    • desktop software (35)
    • food and drink (1)
    • funny (12)
    • gadgets (24)
    • Politics (3)
    • popular culture (5)
    • trains (5)
    • transportation (10)
    • travel (10)
    • websites (3)
  • parallel computing (92)
    • multicore computer architecture (51)
    • multicore debug (22)
    • multicore software (65)
  • programming (107)
  • review (8)
  • security (19)
  • teaching (7)
  • testing (9)
  • uncategorized (12)
  • virtual things (129)
    • computer simulation technology (68)
    • virtual machines (17)
    • virtual platforms (98)
    • virtualization (14)
  • Wind River Blog (40)

Tags

ARM blog commentary Cadence Checkpointing clock-cycle models Communications of the ACM computer architecture conference cycle accuracy debugging DML Domain-specific languages embedded freescale G900 heterogeneous homogeneous IBM Intel iPod lego linux mobile phones multicore off-topic office 2007 operating systems p4080 podcast commentary power architecture rant research reverse debugging reverse execution S4D SiCS Multicore days Simics simulation software tools Sun SystemC video virtualization Vista Windows

1

  • F-Secure Blog

Blogs and news

  • Andras Vajda's blog (on multicore)
  • Embedded in Academia (John Regehr)
  • Grant Martin
  • Jack Ganssle
  • My Wind River Blog
  • Security Now podcast
  • Secworks (Joachim Strömbergson)
  • Simon Kågström
  • Synopsys View from the Top
  • Worse Than Failure

Archives

  • May 2013 (2)
  • April 2013 (1)
  • March 2013 (4)
  • February 2013 (1)
  • January 2013 (3)
  • December 2012 (2)
  • November 2012 (2)
  • October 2012 (1)
  • September 2012 (6)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • July 2012 (4)
  • June 2012 (3)
  • May 2012 (4)
  • April 2012 (2)
  • March 2012 (3)
  • February 2012 (1)
  • January 2012 (6)
  • December 2011 (2)
  • November 2011 (3)
  • October 2011 (4)
  • September 2011 (5)
  • August 2011 (4)
  • July 2011 (3)
  • June 2011 (4)
  • May 2011 (7)
  • April 2011 (1)
  • March 2011 (3)
  • February 2011 (5)
  • January 2011 (1)
  • December 2010 (4)
  • November 2010 (3)
  • October 2010 (5)
  • September 2010 (5)
  • August 2010 (5)
  • July 2010 (6)
  • June 2010 (5)
  • May 2010 (3)
  • April 2010 (4)
  • March 2010 (3)
  • February 2010 (4)
  • January 2010 (7)
  • December 2009 (6)
  • November 2009 (6)
  • October 2009 (7)
  • September 2009 (6)
  • August 2009 (7)
  • July 2009 (11)
  • June 2009 (5)
  • May 2009 (10)
  • April 2009 (7)
  • March 2009 (8)
  • February 2009 (9)
  • January 2009 (12)
  • December 2008 (8)
  • November 2008 (9)
  • October 2008 (9)
  • September 2008 (10)
  • August 2008 (13)
  • July 2008 (12)
  • June 2008 (8)
  • May 2008 (9)
  • April 2008 (10)
  • March 2008 (7)
  • February 2008 (8)
  • January 2008 (5)
  • December 2007 (5)
  • November 2007 (7)
  • October 2007 (7)
  • September 2007 (12)
  • August 2007 (9)
  • July 2007 (2)
© Copyright 2013 - Observations from Uppsala
Infinity Theme by DesignCoral / WordPress