Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

q3k.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#141

Post by drewg123 »

dreeple16 wrote: post #106
drewg123 wrote: post #4

I worked for Myricom 2001->2013, and Google 2013->2015. And, wow, I wish I could comment on this thread.. :) EDIT: Scott's Medium blog post linked from this article is fascinating: https://medium.com/swlh/myricom-an-hpc-story-and-lessons-lea...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lanai was designed by Jakov. Who sadly and unexpectedly passed away a few weeks ago.

Indeed, it was quite a shock. Jakov was a wonderful person and the best supervisor one could hope to have. We're all very sad about his passing, and very sad for his family.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#142

Post by sandos »

azinman2 wrote: post #130
xyzzyz wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re wrong. It is perfectly common to have double coverage. I had it on multiple occasion. You can read about it if you google “coordination of benefits”.

You’re right. I don’t know if this varies by state, but for sure I’ve had to sign contacts stating I didn’t have any other insurance in order to start various plans. So I don’t think this is universally ok but clearly there are situations that allow it, seemingly most common in conjunction with Medicare.

This is funny, because basically every insurance here in Sweden states that if you are covered by another insurance, then this one is invalid. In practice though what Iv'e heard is that the companies will always just be kind and sort of split the responsibility between them instead when something happens.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#143

Post by jsolson »

znpy wrote: post #140
jsolson wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been fairly open about how Google Cloud Networking works -- https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi18/presentation/dalton There's also some more recent coverage on IPUs that I don't have a handy link to.

in fairnes, skimming the slide the name "lanai" doesn't seem to occour

Indeed.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#144

Post by gnufx »

detaro wrote: post #73
gnufx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, I've had rather more trouble with Ethernet than IB, especially given IB management facilities.

IB always seemed like the kind of thing where you loose out a lot of comfort if you go with "old hardware sometimes found cheaply" and thus don't have vendor support, have to dig out drivers and tools from random sources, ...

Obviously if you don't have driver support for the kernel you run, you can't use old stuff if you want to, but we had SDR IB running quite a long time without support. I don't have happy experience of HPC vendor support anyway, and unfortunately IB is now a Mellanox monoculture.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#145

Post by edgyquant »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #112
edgyquant wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought of this too, and it’s actually good system. Those small businesses should be exempt I think. It’s only the large corporations that should be forced to pay (I wouldn’t even be opposed to subsidizing health care for those businesses by taxing larger ones more.) I think a system where we go by revenue is a lot of logical than going by number of employees. If a business makes 1Bpy but only has two employees, wo…

It works out great for everyone except the 47.5% of Americans who are employed by small businesses.

Not really? I’ve mentioned in both comments that we should arbitrate based on revenue, not number of employees. I also said I’m the comment you replied to we could potentially subsidize the benefits at smaller businesses with a tax on the largest. Not saying this would work, or even that the math is sound, but I have definitely addressed your point twice.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#146

Post by p_l »

trasz wrote: post #37

Random, tangentially related thing I just remembered: FreeBSD used to provide its own firmware for (iirc MIPS-like) core used in very early Broadcom NICs. There also used to be a custom firmware for some Adaptec controllers, along with an assembler tool to compile it during kernel build.

All LSI "SCRIPTS" HBAs had firmware as part of kernel/driver sources among the many platforms they were used. I believe linux used a simple assembler whose sources were included in kernel to generate the binaries (if not preprocessor tricks, even). *BSDs definitely had their own solution too.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#147

Post by paulmd »

detaro wrote: post #70
paulmd wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can do point-to-point connections with infiniband, it's a pretty common homelab use-case since adapters are so cheap these days.

InfiniBand is always point-to-point, that's the point. The talk about "bus" is confusing/wrong since it never is a bus.

oh, "bus" in the context of an actual bus, like CAN. I thought p2p just meaning direct-attach. But yeah it's switched, it's not a shared bus.

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#148

Post by Qub3d »

otterley wrote: post #117
_tom_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When does the NDA expire? 7 years is a long time.

Most NDAs are perpetual.

That is only enforceable for Trade Secrets -- at least in most of the US. Google would need to prove that the things this employee worked on were "essential to the commercial viability of the business".

I totally understand not wanting to poke the legal behemoth, however.

As an anecdotal, a personal friend who is a former Googler signed a 10-year NDA, and he had his fingers in quite a few pies.

So maybe in 3 more years?

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#149

Post by b-rian »

duskwuff wrote: post #84
uluyol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would something like this be accepted in open source projects that are not significantly driven by Google? E.g. would Linux accept code for drivers / architectures that are not available to the public? I'm genuinely curious.

> E.g. would Linux accept code for drivers / architectures that are not available to the public? Drivers is an unequivocal "yes". Here's an example -- from Google, in fact: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/e561bc45920aade3f8a... Architectures is less likely. But the pendulum has swung away from "making your own architecture" anyways.

But hey, even with that example, the same mechanism got adapted to Chromebooks+Coreboot and now uses that same driver here:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d384d6f43d1ec3f1225...

Re: Lanai, the mystery CPU architecture in LLVM

#150

Post by vsrinivas »

dreeple16 wrote: post #106
drewg123 wrote: post #4

I worked for Myricom 2001->2013, and Google 2013->2015. And, wow, I wish I could comment on this thread.. :) EDIT: Scott's Medium blog post linked from this article is fascinating: https://medium.com/swlh/myricom-an-hpc-story-and-lessons-lea...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lanai was designed by Jakov. Who sadly and unexpectedly passed away a few weeks ago.

I'm sorry to hear Jakov passed away - he was a brilliant, kind engineer.
Post reply on HN