Re: Architectural implications of locate mode I/O

Stephen Fuld wrote:

Scott Lurndal wrote:
>

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 13:08:31 +0100
Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>

On 2 Jul 2024, MitchAlsup1 wrote
(in article<8bfe4d34bae396114050ad1000f4f31c@www.novabbs.org>):
>

Once you recognize that I/O is eating up your precious CPU, and

you >> > get to the point you are willing to expend another fixed
programmed >> > device to make the I/O burden manageable, then you
basically have >> > CDC 6600 Peripheral Processors, programmed in
code or microcode.  >>

The EE KDF9 (~1960) allowed up to 16 connected devices at a time.
They all did DMA, interrupting only at the end of the transfer.
Slow devices accessed the core store for each character,
fast devices did so for each word.
>
This was mediated by one of the KDF9's many state machines,
I/O Control, which multiplexed core requests from devices
and interrupted the CPU at the end of a transfer
if the transfer had been initiated by a program
of higherCPU priority than the one currently running,
or if there was a possibility of priority inversion.
>
I/O Control also autonomously re-issued an I/O command
to a device that reported a parity error
if that device was capable of retrying the transfer
(e.g. MT controllers could backspace a block and re-read).
>

>
That sounds quite advanced.
But when I try to compare with contemporaries, like S/360 Model 65,
it appears that despite advances KDF9 was not competitive to
maximally configured 65 because of shortage of main memory.

>
The contemporaneous Burroughs B3500 I/O subsystem
fully supported asynchronous DMA transfers with no
CPU intervention.

>
>
snipped description
>
Yes, that is an example of the kind of thing to which I was referring
in my response to Mitch's post.  A question.  Was all of this pure
hardware, or was it microcoded?

S.E.L created a thing they called the RCU (Remote Control Unit).
It was basically a channel with writable microcode. NASA bought
a bunch of them because they had tapes from the deep space radio
telescopes where an entire 9-track tape contained 1 record. NASA
just started the tape and recorded satellite data until the end
of the tape, where they would start the next tape just before the
end of the previous tape.
So we programmed the RCU to read as much as the system memory
allowed, backed the tap up 1 second while dumping the data to
disk. Then we started the tape forward with the RCU watching
the pattern on the tape, when it detected 4096 bytes of the
last read, it would start streaming data in to memory again.
No other company could demonstrate that they could read one
of those tapes.
Presto, reading a whole 9-track tape with no inter record gaps !!
{{I may have the name of the unit wrong}}