1 / 21

Instruction Sets and Beyond

Instruction Sets and Beyond. Computers, Complexity, and Controversy Brian Blum, Darren Drewry Ben Hocking, Gus Scheidt. Outline. Points of Clarification RISC and CISC defined Points of Attention and Contention RISC II and the MCF Evaluation Multiple Register Sets The 432 Summary.

miliani
Download Presentation

Instruction Sets and Beyond

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Instruction Sets and Beyond Computers, Complexity, and Controversy Brian Blum, Darren Drewry Ben Hocking, Gus Scheidt

  2. Outline • Points of Clarification • RISC and CISC defined • Points of Attention and Contention • RISC II and the MCF Evaluation • Multiple Register Sets • The 432 • Summary

  3. Points of Clarification • 1985 - What is RISC today? • RISC – Number of Instructions • RISC:academic .vs. CISC:commercial

  4. RISC Defined • Single Cycle Operation • Load / Store Design • Hardwired Control (No microcode) • Few Instructions and Addressing Modes • Fixed Instruction Format • More Compile Time Effort • (Split Data and Instruction Cache)

  5. CISC in Comparison • Larger and more Complex (Insn & Addr) • Multiple Cycle Execution (micro-instructions) • Upward Compatible (w/ Obsolete Insn) • Standardized • More Hardware (on-chip logic) • Fewer Registers – Unified Cache?

  6. RISC and CISC: General Points • CISC Built for Language (Assembly) • CISC Built for Memory Conservation • CISC Focuses on Standards and Compatibility • RISC Designed for Speed • RISC Simultaneous Access to Code and Operands • RISC Reliance on Compilers • Worse: or just Different?

  7. Two Misconceptions about RISC and CISC • Implication that discussion is limited to selection of instruction set. • Tradeoffs across various boundaries: architecture / implementation hardware / software compile-time / run-time

  8. Two Misconceptions about RISC and CISC • Implication that any machine is one or the other. • Machine performance difficult to interpret • Absolute number of instructions is not the only criterion - compiler / architecture coupling - non-instruction set design decisions

  9. Early arguments for RISC • Simpler designs could be realized more quickly • Avoid performance disadvantages of old implementation technology.

  10. DEC’s MicroVAX-32 • Qualifies as a CISC • Very short development period • Standardization of instruction set • RISC can benefit from standardization • Demonstrates importance of assigning function to appropriate implementation level • Microcoding can be a valuable technique

  11. Misleading RISC Claims • Amount of design time saved. • Academic vs. commercial design and production • Performance claims. • Typical benchmarks avoid metrics of reliability and response time • Use of micro-benchmarks vs. large, heterogeneous benchmarks

  12. Multiple Register Sets • Performance feature independent of RISC aspect of processor • Reduce frequency of register saves/restores on procedure calls • Overlap register sets for parameter passing • MRS impact performance for both RISC and CISC

  13. Effect of MRS on CISC Effect of MRS on RISC

  14. RISC II and the MCF Evaluation • Used by Department of Defense to evaluate life-cycle cost of computers • Efficiency defined as: program size; memory bus traffic; canonical processor cycles • VAX (CISC) judged best by MCF • RISC II evaluation compared to VAX

  15. RISC II and the MCF Evaluation • Results of comparison • VAX requires 3.5 times less memory (for program instructions) • RISC II has 2.5 times more processor-memory traffic • VAX requires fewer cycles than RISC II

  16. A CISC Example – The 432 • Object-oriented • Geared towards Ada • Every object protected uniformly • Variable length instructions (6-321 bits) • On-chip microcode • Every memory reference is checked

  17. Problems with the 432 • 10-20 times as slow on low-level benchmarks (such as Hanoi) • No on-chip data caching • No instruction stream literals • No local registers • Ada compile performs almost no optimization

  18. Advantages of the 432 • Reliability • Could be faster at more realistic benchmarks (especially ones that use IPCs)

  19. Lessons from the 432 • Even with all of the oversights of the 432, it has an important advantage – reliability • More realistic benchmarks should be used to compare RISC with CISC • CISCs should take advantage of multiple register sets

  20. Conclusions • When comparing RISC with CISC you should use similar hardware organizations • Benefits depend on • Types of programs being run • Whether requirements are based on • Performance • Reliability • Some other factor or set of factors

  21. And now to thank those who made this all possible!

More Related