Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2009
  • Online publication date: June 2012

9 - Current Limitations and Future Challenges

Summary

Since 2003, the peak frequency at which single processors and chip multiprocessors have operated has remained largely unchanged. One basic reason is that power dissipation effects have limited frequency increases. In addition, difficulties in extracting more parallelism at the instruction level, design complexity, and the effects of wire lengths have resulted in a performance plateau for single processors. We elaborate on some of these issues in this chapter.

While improvements in clock frequency and in ILP exploitation have been stalled, Moore's law is still valid, and the amount of logic that can be laid out on a chip is still increasing. Adding more cache memory to a single processor to fill all the on-chip real estate has reached a point of diminishing return, performancewise. Multithreaded processors, which mitigate the effects of the memory wall, and multiprocessors on a chip (CMP, also called multicores) are the current approach to attaining more performance. A question that is of primary importance to computer architects and to computer users in general is the structure of future CMPs, as mentioned in the previous chapter.

In a conservative evolutionary fashion, future CMPs might look like those we have presented in Chapter 8, with naturally a slightly larger number of cores. Questions of whether there should be many simple cores vs. fewer high-performance ones, and of whether the cores should be homogeneous or not, have already been touched upon previously. Although speed is still the primary metric, other aspects such as reliability and security have gained importance.

References
Albonesi, D., Balasubramonian, R., Dropsho, S., Dwarkadas, S., Friedman, E., Huang, M., Kursun, V., Magklis, G., Scott, M., Semeraro, G., Bose, P., Buyuktosunoglu, A., Cook, P., and Schuster, S., “Dynamic Tuning Processor Resources with Adaptive Processing,” IEEE Computer, 36, 12, Dec. 2003, 49–58
Balasubramonian, R., Albonesi, D., Buyuktosunoglu, A., and Dwarkadas, S., “Memory Hierarchy Reconfiguration for Energy and Performance in General-purpose Processor Architectures,” Proc. 33rd Int. Symp. on Microarchitecture, 2000, 245–257
Brooks, D. and Martonosi, M., “Dynamic Thermal Management in High-Performance Microprocessors,” Proc.7th Int. Symp. on High-Performance Computer Architecture, 2001, 171–182
Folegnani, D. and Gonzales, A., “Energy-effective Issue Logic,” Proc. 28th Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture, 2001, 230–239
Gunther, S., Beans, F., Carmean, D., and Hall, J., “Managing the Impact of Increasing Power Consumption,” Intel Tech. Journal, 5, 1, Feb. 2001, 1–9
Grunwald, D., Levis, P., Farkas, K., Morrey, C., and Neufeld, M., “Policies for Dynamic Clock Scheduling,” Proc. 4th USENIX Symp. on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, 2000, 73–86
Gochman, S., Ronen, R., Anati, I., Berkovits, A., Kurts, T., Naveh, A., Saeed, A., Sperber, Z., and Valentine, R., “The Intel Pentium M Processor: Microarchitecture and Performance,” Intel Tech. Journal, 7, 2, May 2003, 21–36
Hrishikesh, M., Jouppi, N., Farkas, K., Burger, D., Keckler, S., and Shivakumar, P., “The Optimal Logic Depth per Pipeline Stage is 6 to 8 FO4 Inverter Delays,” Proc. 29th Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture, 2002, 14–24
Ho, R., Mai, K., and Horowitz, M., “The Future of Wires,” Proc. of the IEEE, 89, 4, Apr. 2001, 490–504
Harstein, A. and Puzak, T., “The Optimum Pipeline Depth for a Microprocessor,” Proc. 29th Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture, 2002, 7–13
Kim, N., Flautner, K., Blaauw, D., and Mudge, T., “Drowsy Instruction Caches – Leakage Power Reduction Using Dynamic Voltage Scaling and Cache Sub-bank Prediction,” Proc. 29th Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture, 2002, 219–230
Kaxiras, S., Hu, Z., and Martonosi, M., “Cache Decay: Exploiting Generational Behavior to Reduce Cache Leakage Power,” Proc. 28th Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture, 2001, 240–251
Naveh, A., Rotem, E., Mendelson, A., Gochman, S., Chabuskwar, R., Krishnan, K., and Kumar, A., “Power and Thermal Management in the Intel Core Dual Processor,” Intel Tech. Journal, 10, 2, May 2006, 109–122
Ponomarev, D., Kucuk, G., and Ghose, K., “Reducing Power Requirements of Instruction Scheduling through Dynamic Allocation of Multiple Datapath Resources,” Proc. 34th Int. Symp. on Microarchitecture, 2001, 90–101
Skadron, K., Stan, M., Huang, W., Velusamy, S., Sankararayanan, K., and Tarjan, D., “Temperature-Aware Microarchitecture,” Proc. 30th Int. Symp. on Computer Architecture, 2003, 2–13
Venkatachalam, V. and Franz, M., “Power Reduction Techniques for Microprocessor Systems,” ACM Computing Surveys, 37, 3, Sep. 2005, 195–237
Weiser, M., Welch, B., Demers, A., and Shenker, S., “Scheduling for Reduced CPU Energy,” Proc. 1st USENIX Symp. on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, 1994, 13–23