Joe Landman wrote:
... so I see you have never used an interprocedural analysis (-ipa)
switch :)
Allows you do do things like, I dunno, inline one whole routine inside
another ...
I've never used this but from your description I don't
see how it leads to larger text sizes at runtime. After all, if you have
routine A which is 10 bytes, and routine B which is 20 bytes,
it would seem that they collectively take 30 bytes no matter
if they stand alone or one inside the other. I might not
be understanding this right, though.
Usually leads to much larger program text sizes.
This said, I have seen very large programs from RISC days hitting well
more than 1 GB of text. I haven't played with any recently though.
Let's say this is about right. Do you see such programs getting
even larger in the future?
Why is sharing expensive in performance? It might take a little
overhead to setup and manage, but why is having multiple virtual
addresses map to the same physical memory expensive?
Contention. Memory hot spots. Been there, done that. We are about to
do this all over again (collectively).
Naively I would think that text memory hot spots would be a good
thing, because then all the benefits of caching would kick in.
There would be no cache coherence overhead since text is read-only.
Why is this a bad thing?
--
Jon Forrest
Research Computing Support
College of Chemistry
173 Tan Hall
University of California Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
94720-1460
510-643-1032
jlforr...@berkeley.edu
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
