Witold Baryluk

You can easily use AMD GPUs on any architecture, as long as you have some PCIe controller, and Linux support for this PCIe controller. AMD GPUs have fully stack open source support in Linux kernel, Mesa 3D drivers (for OpenGL, OpenCL, Vulkan, and other stuff, like video decode/encode), etc. And Intel new dGPUs too. The Nvidia state in Mesa is reasonably good too, and can be definitively be used, but not close to performance of proprietary drivers. However, there are no technical reasons it can’t be supported on other architectures. (I.e. Nvidia GPUs work on x86, POWER and ARM64, and more are possible if there is a will, it is mostly software problem).

Most PCIe controllers are of the shelf IP blocks, that are integrated into the other silicon. This is because PCIe is mostly complex high speed analog / RF signals, and it is not just digital logic. I am pretty sure Mill will be using one of the known IP blocks for this, like Synopsys or Cadence, or such. They are battle tested, certified, have drivers for the host in Linux, comply with PCIe standards, etc. When the time is right it will be there. Mill without PCIe host controllers, would be unusable for anything interesting.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Witold Baryluk.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Witold Baryluk.

About qemu on Mill. Obviously it would be trivial to run qemu or bochs on Mill, and it will probably compile out of the box with zero changes. However, qemu is not designed for emulation speed. It does only JIT (so no AoT), takes a long time startup and warmup, consume memory for both source and translated code, and the generated (JITed) code is of very poor quality (like 5 to 10 times worse than what normal compiler generate for the original code). There is very little optimizations in qemu to make JIT-ed code fast, only some minor things, like patching direct and indirect jumps, removing some condition code checks, but no code motions, no control flow recovery, no advanced register re-allocator, no instruction reordering, etc. The purpose of that qemu emulator code (tcg) is to be only reasonably fast, and VERY portable (tcg virtual machine has I think only 3 registers for example, which means you underutilize a lot of hardware, and loose data flow information, and add a lot of extra moves to memory, sure, it can be improved or recovered back, but again that is slow). So it will run on Mill, just like it runs on 20 other architectures. But don’t expect magic in terms of speed even on Mill.

Valgrind is extremely slow. It purpose is debugging, not speed.

There are other binary translation projects, but most of them don’t focus on speed or cross-emulation, more like changing (including runtime optimization) native binary on the fly for some purposes.

Writing a proper translator (that could be later integrated into qemu) is obviously possible, and there were many hybrid optimizing AoT/JIT in the world that showed that one can achieve very good results. See FX!32, Rosetta 1, Rosetta 2, box86. Microsoft has also pretty decent x86-arm dynrec.

It would be much better to reuse qemu where it makes sense (Linux virtio, chipset, usb, networking, storage, etc), but write specialized JIT module, or optimize a lot out of the tcg in qemu. Some target pairs in qemu do have some extra non-generic optimisations, so that is totally doable, to for example write amd64 to mill specific code.

However, at the end of a day, is it really that important?

If Mill is 10 times more efficient and faster, then for a lot of applications you don’t really need any binary translation, because you can just compile things for optimal performance. And well, you would want that to actually consider Mill anyway, because otherwise you are wasting hardware potential. That is why Mill is targeting generic server workloads, a bit of HPC maybish, and some generic Linux stuff. 99% of interesting workloads are developed in-house, so can be recompiled, or are open source, so also can be recompiled. Will you be able to run Oracle or Microsoft databases on Mill, probably not initially. Once the hardware is out, either important software will be ported (just look at how quickly Apple M1 got adopted by software developers, and already thousands of proprietary programs are ported to use M1 natively – all because, a) the hardware is fast, so there is incentive to do so, b) hardware is accessible to developers easily). Or open source community will do dynrec, or two or three. Mill Computing, Inc. doesn’t have resources of Apple to do it on their own on the product launch. Damn, even IBM doesn’t have resources to do that with their POWER and s390x systems.

Thanks goldbug. I see they do admit in the paper that indeed compiler hoisting loads to do speculative loads before checks, can make Mill be vulnerable to Spectre. “In our analysis we found and fixed one such bug in the Mill compiler tool chain.” And the solution was to improve compiler. I am not sure how it figures out where to make these speculative loads and where not, as it is really hard to predict where untrusted data is being used, without annotations or barriers in code. (and without killing performance in some other workloads that benefit from compiler doing speculative loads).

The fact that Meltdown-like load doesn’t pollute the cache is nice, and it puts a NaR as a result. This isn’t that much different than what AMD is doing on their CPUs, where they also do protection/TLB check soon enough, and do not put stuff in cache. Intel was doing this too late in the pipeline, and it was polluting cache. So nothing extremely special about that here.

For the Spectre variant 2, it is interesting that Mill actually does restore entire CPU, including caches, to a correct state even on missprediction in branch predictor. I guess this is doable because the misprediction latency is low, and only few instructions would be fetched and decoded, and it is easy to restore data cache back (because if it was L1 miss, the data would not arrive from L2 anyway in that time). Similarly if the misprediction targeted instructions that are not in instruction cache, (which would make it a bad branch predictor anyway, and is unlikely to be a miss), they will not arrive on time from L2 either, so it is easy to cancel the load and go back into proper path.

There are examples in the paper, exactly discussing the same example I was pointing on.

It appears the solution was to actually not do speculative loads before all checks that would skip the load, are executed, if possible in single instruction, i.e.

lsssb(%3, %2) %5,
   loadtr(%5, %0, 0, %3, w, 3) %6;

This is nice, and has very little performance penalty. In both cases the load here will produce a result on a belt, but if the condition is false, it will put a NaR on belt. So, rest of the code can still do speculative stuff, or use this value (real or NaR) as input to other stuff (including other loads indexes for example). I really like NaRs.

And people who write more performance oriented stuff, can probably pass a flag to do more aggressive (and Spectre prone) scheduling.

I guess this is not bad.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by  Witold Baryluk.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by  Witold Baryluk.

Yes. That is the purpose. It will except on most divisions, but not all. As of additions and multiplications, hard to say. I would say it depends on application. I.e. 2*3, or 0.5+1 will not except, but when adding vastly different values in magnitude, or ones that have a lot of nonzero in significant digits, it will except.

It is a useful tool in some applications. I never used it personally tho, even in implementation of interval arithmetic.

That is completely off topic.

My comment was about the claim that Mill is immune to Spectre because it doesn’t do speculation as OoO machines, and during talk there was mention that fixing OoO require labor-intensive and error-prone annotations of the code, and claim that Mill doesn’t require that.

How is that true, in the context of my code example and compiler hoisting loads before branches, which WILL happen in 95% of open code and loops.

Dave, that sound like a solution that could be implemented on any architecture, and adds additional complexities in terms of cache coherency, and adds latency to check in both caches probably.

I am all for QoS or minimum-maximum ranges of allocated cache space (in LLC) per turf, so meory intensive and cache trashing other processes do not completely kill applications that want low latency and some small amount of cache (mostly for code, and a bit of data), that is not constantly evicted on context switches. But I do not think L1 has enough space do do the same for data.

Kahan is wrong 🙂 I hope it was just a joke.

I think the intention is that, if you use /Qlfist, then you make sure to manually set rounding modes in relevant code (to chop, so the FIST comforms to C semantic of float to int conversion), or in main, and you are aware that this also will change normal floating point operations rounding (but that is of much smaller importance in many cases). This way the code emitted by compiler doesn’t change rounding modes all the time, and you are supposed to make sure that the modes are correct instead.

Anyway, fortunately modern machines, have better facilities for dealing with the problem (FISTTP and CVTTSS2SI).