Article View: comp.sys.transputer
Article #674Re: Mixed C40/transputer networks & 3L Parallel C
From: & Stevens
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:39
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:39
31 lines
1652 bytes
1652 bytes
Just thought I would add my two pence worth to debate. Since 3L Parallel(ha ha) C never did support fine grained parallelism I guess it doesn't matter too much what you run it on. Transputer, C40, even 680x0 using semaphores and shared memory: it would all be much the same. At least Inmos just call a C with a process library "ANSI C" and make no claims for its parallel nature. Never having used a C40 (this being comp.sys.transputer) the following questions come to mind. 1. Its a newer chip then a T8 and clearly faster, but it an actual multiprocessing system do you get more bang per buck? 2. Is the architecture up to the job? Context switch time is just as important as comunications speed. To get the much sort after linear increase in performace Performance | / | / | / |/ |-------- No of processors each processor must be able to fill up all its available time. To do this it must be able to quickly do something else while it waits for other processors i.e. Context switch -- Michael Stevens, Robotics Research Group,Dept of Engineering Science,Oxford,UK INTERNET: michael@robots.oxford.ac.uk
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<MICHAEL.92Aug19213930@lucrece.uk.ac.oxford>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!ox-prg!michaelReferences:
<2a9282d0@ThreeL.co.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!ox-prg!michael From: michael@uk.ac.oxford.robots (& Stevens) Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer Subject: Re: Mixed C40/transputer networks & 3L Parallel C Message-ID: <MICHAEL.92Aug19213930@lucrece.uk.ac.oxford> Date: 19 Aug 92 20:39:30 GMT References: <2a9282d0@ThreeL.co.uk> Sender: news@comlab.ox.ac.uk Organization: Dept. Engineering Science, Oxford University, UK Lines: 31 In-reply-to: adc@threel.co.uk's message of 19 Aug 92 16:20:16 GMT