SuSE Submits Enhancements for AMD Hammer

ackthpt writes "SuSE has this press release as they are submitting enhancements to the Linux kernal particular to the AMD's x86-64 processor instruction set. Anticipated for 2.6 kernel, some enhancements may appear in 2.4, as development is only beginning on 2.5. AMD's take on the announcement as well.". nik notes that SuSE join NetBSD in having ports to Hammer. Usenix members can see the paper Wasabi's Frank van der Linden wrote about the porting effort.

Comments

great, but what about GCC?

[Khopesh]

this is truely a great move in the right direction, but we also need to see something like a gcc support and optimization for this new architecture. AMD, please: you are the expert on your chips. As Intel made it's own free compiler, so too can you. Ideally, release your compiler via MIT-License, LGPL, GPL, or something similar, and releasing an optimization for GCC would blow my mind.

Re:great, but what about GCC?

[Ace Rimmer]

There are some people in SuSE working on gcc Hammer optimizations this is a part of the contract between AMD and SuSE.

Re:great, but what about GCC?

[DrSkwid]

Not necessarily. Recall from this slashdot story about this article the intel compiler also showed similar results over GCC when targetting the Athlon.

GCC's mission statement is not the running time of executable code, we've recently been having a thread about it on the plan9 mailing list (or comp.os.plan9). (although ours started as a flame from Thomas Bushnell that plan9's 8c was nothing more than a "cute toy" - 8c is more concerned with compilation speed than execution time where it beats GCC hands down, if you want raw execution speed look elsewhere).

It could well be that Intel's compiler will show similar performance gains over GCC on the Hammer.

I wonder if every problem will start to look like a nail when the hammer claws it's way out of the AMD tool box.

Re:great, but what about GCC?

[VAXman]

Oh, I have no doubt that Intel's compiler will produce great 32 bit code on Hammer. Hammer is just a proliferation of K7 with 64 bit extensions, and AMD knows how to optimize their hardware for that compiler (they use it when submitting their SPEC scores).

But Intel's C compiler won't generate 64 bit code, which means that AMD has to rely on GCC for 64 bit applications. So any performance advantage of 64 bit is more than nullified because there's not a decent compiler for it.

It's being done!! :)

[Daath]

FreeBSD is working on an x86-64 GCC! Actually AMD itself has sponsored this! Take a look at the link!

Re:It's being done!! :)

[vidarh]

I believe you've misread. FreeBSD people are working on adapting a x86-64 GCC port that was done by SuSE. AMD does state on the x86-64 website that they are supporting porting work for both Linux, FreeBSD and NetBSD, however.

already being done...

[scorcherer]

Take a look at GCC main page and you'll see a note on the x86-64 port contributed by SuSE.

Re:But where/when can we get a Hammer?

[Phosphor3k]

They are tentatively shceduled to be released at the end of 2002. I would wager that they won't be available in force to the common man until sometime 1st quarter 2003.

Re:Newbie 64-bit question

[Flavio]

This is called a SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) operation. It's what MMX is all about.

It's usually not worth doing this if there's no SIMD hardware support, because the time wasted loading your values and then separating them isn't compensated by the gain in speed. Of course there are special cases (like when dealing with bit strings) where this is used by definition (and will be an improvement).

Re:But where/when can we get a Hammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Hammers available right now? If so, where can I get one?

Yes! Your nearest hardware store should have a good selection!

Re:misleading headline

[bears]

According to one of the developers from SuSE who worked on this (and demoed SuSE running under one of the x86-64 simulators at a recent OxLUG talk ), SuSE and other porters did indeed make suggestions to AMD as to details of the architecture which were taken up by AMD.

Re:Newbie 64-bit question

[VAXman]

No, you can't, unless you can guarantee that the result from the lower half of the operand will not affect any bits in the upper half. For multiplication this will happen all the time but for addition it will happen whenever the lower operand carries over.

Besides, 64 bit operations are higher latency than 32 bit operations, and the cost of all of the shifting and masking to separate the results would be very high. It would be much faster to just do two separate 32 bit operations.

SIMD is a different story since the hardware assembles and reassembled the operands, and executes them on separate executions units.

Interesting read

[Matrim9]

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020227/

Interesting - they tested one of the Hammer CPUs on Suse, but they only ran XP in 32-bit... :o

Re:Interesting read

[Phosphor3k]

Just a clarification. Tom did not test these. This was a demonstration at a trade show that everyone and their brother has been reporting on. No one was allowed to test any software on these machines. However, this is the FIRST batch of hammers tested in public. The series on the cpu was A0. Generally, AMD and Intel do not test/show of such early production CPUs to the public as they are still going through testing/debugging.

Freedom to Innovate

[Paul the Bold]

You will recall that when AMD demoed hammer recently, they showed a 32-bit Windows system and a 64-bit Linux system. People were commenting on AMD preferring Linux over Windows, therefore showing a more powerful Linux demo than a Windows demo.

The truth is that there is not a 64-bit version of Windows for the Hammer. AMD was able to modify the existing Linux code to create their own 64-bit version of Linux. This is the best example of the freedom granted by the GPL that I have seen in months. AMD is releasing a new product at the end of the year, and they are able to create a demand for it NOW by having software for it NOW.

Do you remember the lag between the introduction of Intel's Itanium and a Windows version for Itanium? It was not well coordinated. AMD has done the opposite, they created a demand and a use several months before the release, and it's working. We are all drooling over a 64-bit architecture, and we will have 6-8 months to think about (and save up for) the purchase of a Hammer.

This is the freedom to innovate that is granted by the GPL and denied by the MS EULA. GPLed software is going to make AMD some money.

I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Open Source software vital to hammer success

[AZPhysics]

While Hammer will fly at 32 bit code, the 64 bit code will really differentiate the proccessor. Two-way clawhammer Beowulfs should be a huge business. But, the differentiation will really not show on Windows until (unless) they develop a x86-64 bit windows. I wouldn't count on them doing that until Intel comes out with their version of x86-64. (note that I didn't say if). There will be great pressure to recompile and reoptimize Open software to take advantage of the Hammer.

I think this is a wonderful advancement. I run Suse on an athlon now, and will run suse on a dual hammer in probably a year in a half (I can't afford to be bleeding edge). I can't find many optimizations for the Athlon in compilers and such. However, with the Hammer, the optimizations will be out there. Not only will the compilers have flags, but entire distributions will likely be built with re-compiled applications. That would be something I would pay more for.