Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:12:16 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2003 at 19:08:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On August 03, 2003 at 16:52:17, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sorry, I'll be clearer this time:
>>
>>(Talking about claim that Windows kernel is written in the assembler)
>>
>>SARCASM ON:
>>
>>This is definitely so, especially if you take into account that NT/2k/XP
>>variants were commercially sold not only for x86, but for PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha,
>>and IA-64 CPUs. Of course MS wrote 5 kernels in the different assembler
>>languages...
>>
>>SARCASM OFF.
>>
>>Vincent is the only source from which I hear that fact. And if I have to choose
>>between Vincent's words and NT source code on one of my developer's machine,
>>I'll trust the later...
>
>So there is a C version too. Cool to know.
>
>But for your notice, yes the released thing has major assembly parts in the
>kernel. Of course you don't know what the other divisions of microsoft are
>doing. I guess you are in the compiler division?
>
>I know that most people do not count inline assembly (johan de koning) as being
>assembly, but call it 'C code' even when it is the important part of the
>software that is in assembly. If you belong to that gang just raise a hand.
>
>>Thanks,
>>Eugene
Your pompousness and ego never cease to amaze me.
1. _all_ operating systems have _some_ assembly language in them. There
is no way to do some things in C. Yes, inline assembly is possible, but it
is _non-portable_ and it is not easy to read/write.
2. Suggesting that you know more than Eugene about the internals of Windows
is so far beyond ridiculous, it takes light 3 years to get from ridiculous to
you.
_nobody_ writes an O/S in assembly today...
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Eugene
>>
>>
>>On August 03, 2003 at 15:22:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>
>>>On August 03, 2003 at 14:49:12, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 03, 2003 at 11:12:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 03, 2003 at 06:14:06, Bo Persson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 02, 2003 at 18:22:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On August 02, 2003 at 09:15:26, Bo Persson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On August 01, 2003 at 14:13:18, Kim Roper Jensen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On August 01, 2003 at 14:00:18, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I see quite different result on AMD64 when Crafty is compiled by 64-bit Visual
>>>>>>>>>>C. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sorry for asking but what did you see ?? :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A non-disclosure agreement in his employment contract? :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm sure we will see the numbers about 2 seconds after the compiler is released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not really. What you need first is a windows version that can run the stuff 64
>>>>>>>bits native at opteron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, of course. Do you care to make a guess on what MS is using their Opteron
>>>>>>compiler for. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess they are working hard and basic problem is not only that m$ is 32 bits
>>>>>in some respects (file systems and such already long period ago 64 bits in 1995)
>>>>>but especially that their kernel stuff is written in assembly.
>>>>
>>>>This is definitely so, especially if you take into account that NT/2k/XP
>>>>variants were commercially sold not only for x86, but for PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha,
>>>>and IA-64 CPUs. Of course MS wrote 5 kernels in the different assembler
>>>>languages...
>>>
>>>It is hard for me to understand why so much is in assembler and why there
>>>seemingly is no x bits 'C' version which they can compile on any hardware with
>>>little effort.
>>>
>>>All you need then is a good compiler and perhaps just a bit of handtuning here
>>>and there.
>>>
>>>Even a way slower C version of such an OS would kick of course incredible butt
>>>already for the different testsets. Now and in the future.
>>>
>>>In the meantime what i'm using is:
>>>
>>>bash-2.05$ uname -a
>>>Linux a1.teras.sara.nl 2.4.20-sgi220r3 #1 SMP Wed Jun 4 16:43:37 PDT 2003 ia64
>>>unknown
>>>
>>>bash-2.05$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax
>>>90387103744
>>>
>>>This REMINDS me of a problem i have with windows. In order to get for different
>>>processes pointers in shared memory at the same virtual adress space i use next:
>>>
>>> TreeFileMap = OpenFileMapping(FILE_MAP_ALL_ACCESS,FALSE,
>>> "DiepMapFile_Tree");
>>> if( TreeFileMap == NULL )
>>> mprint("Fatal Error Mapping File: 'tree' for proces %i\n",
>>> ProcessNumber);
>>> tree = (TreeInfo *)MapViewOfFileEx(TreeFileMap,
>>> FILE_MAP_ALL_ACCESS,0,0,0,(LPVOID)0x01000000);
>>>
>>>and of course createfilemapping to create it. The problem is that last parameter
>>>in mapviewoffileex. I put it hardcoded at a certain adress in the memory. What i
>>>fear is that some software like the JRE and some databases (oracle?) are using
>>>similar adresses to map stuff into the same adress space.
>>>
>>>If they take my adress then i have bad luck simply.
>>>
>>>In Linux/IRIX/UNIX there is a way around that because i use ftok to get an
>>>unique Key not yet in use by other software. Then shmget/shmat puts
>>>automatically the allocated memory in the same adress space for the processes.
>>>
>>>Any way to prevent other processes taking care diep can't start parallel?
>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Eugene
>>>>
>>>>>That's one of the reasons why the kernel is much faster practically than linux
>>>>>for applications (if i put of old diep versions which aren't NUMA 2 processes to
>>>>>search at a single cpu machine then it runs *way* faster on NT, about factor 2
>>>>>to 4 than under linux kernel).
>>>>>
>>>>>So using their own compiler for their own kernel is not exactly what they can
>>>>>do.
>>>>>
>>>>>A big challenge of opteron is that it is NUMA.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure m$ will be very happy supporting the AMD platforms. Competition in the
>>>>>hardware branche is good for microsoft. So in the highest levels of the
>>>>>organisations the x86-64 platforms will have a lot of support.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even if microsoft wouldn't want to support it, they still MUST support it
>>>>>because x86 is history within a few years and we all will be running x86-64
>>>>>platforms only. Either with intel OR amd sticker.
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess even the biggest cpu amateurs will understand by now that intel is
>>>>>developing their own x86-64 processor generations. Perhaps even giving it a 'p4'
>>>>>sticker though it's an entirely new core.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only thing we do not know is *when* they will release their x86-64 cpu's.
>>>>>AMD simply has advantage there now.
>>>>>
>>>>>We can very shortly describe the x86-64 architecture. Cheap. High clockable and
>>>>>superior to everything out there including itanium. Especially superior to
>>>>>itanium.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm running at a cpu or 64 now (itanium2-madison 1.3Ghz 3MB) and they are great
>>>>>for the highend but a joke even when compared to x86 for the average user.
>>>>>
>>>>>Intel plans to mass produce itaniums for the 'low-end' market have been put into
>>>>>the fridge a long while ago. The only reason intel is continuing this processor
>>>>>now (seemingly) is because they probably can't go back. Or perhaps they wait
>>>>>until they have x86-64 cpu's available.
>>>>>
>>>>>How can GCC 2.96 without profile recompilation be just 15% slower than intel c++
>>>>>7.0 using profile information (prof_use) at the itanium platform?
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem of the itanium platform is they can't clock it high despite working
>>>>>for years already at that problem, it is too expensive, and it is impossible to
>>>>>write software for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even the current generations of supercomputers with itaniums that get delivered
>>>>>are missing major software support for it. Like crucial fortran libraries.
>>>>>
>>>>>This where > 60% of the total system time of supercomputers goes to gflops used
>>>>>by fortran libraries.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you add up the picture then it is a matter of time before the x86-64 will
>>>>>dominate everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>However it is sad to realize that most likely the linux world will be too late
>>>>>again. Despite that microsoft must convert their assembly libraries to new
>>>>>opteron assembly, we know they must be very far already with that conversion.
>>>>>
>>>>>This where the linux plans to write a NUMA kernel for kernel 2.6 have been just
>>>>>defined a few weeks ago. Not to mention the years it will take to carry out an
>>>>>effective implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>>For those who still do not understand what i'm talking about. When you have more
>>>>>than 1 opteron processor, so a dual opteron or even more processors, then it is
>>>>>of crucial importance that the kernel can run locally on each kernel for the
>>>>>jobs that can be done locally.
>>>>>
>>>>>Local memory at opteron is way faster than global memory.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact the opteron asks for a cc-NUMA operating system which until recently was
>>>>>only getting used by very big non-real time supercomputer systems.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would not be surprised if microsoft is years sooner in releasing a version
>>>>>that works well than the linux community, despite that everyone will understand
>>>>>that bugfixing assembly code is a lot harder than fixing a bit of C code.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bo Persson
>>>>>>bop2@telia.com
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.