Re: Anticipating processor architectural evolution

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:11:30 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>

I've had to refactor my RTOS design to accommodate the likelihood of SMT
in future architectures.
>
Thinking (hoping?) these logical cores to be the "closest to the code",
I call them "Processors" (hysterical raisins).  Implicit in SMT is the
notion that they are architecturally similar/identical.
>
These are part of PHYSICAL cores -- that I appropriately call "Cores".
>
These Cores are part of "Hosts" (ick; term begs for clarity!)... what
one would casually call "chips"/CPUs.  Note that a host can house dissimilar
Cores (e.g., big.LITTLE).
>
Two or more hosts can be present on a "Node" (the smallest unit intended to
be added to or removed from a "System").  Again, they can be dissimilar
(think CPU/GPU).
>
I believe this covers the composition/hierarchy of any (near) future
system architectures.  And, places the minimum constraints on said.
>
Are there any other significant developments in the pipeline that
could alter my conception of future hardware designs?

>
Why not hundreds of CPUs on a chip, each assigned to one function,
with absolute hardware protection? They need not be identical, because
many would be assigned to simple functions.
>

The mess we have now is the legacy of thinking about a CPU as some
precious resource.
>
>