Live data from Hacker News

A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

rvembedded.com

101–110 of 350 posts

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#101
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, people in the United States often (incorrectly) short hand East Asia as Asia just like the people in the city of New York will often (correctly) short hand New York City as New York.

It's an interesting evolution given that Asia as a term started out meaning just the westernmost tip of current-Asia, ie Western Anatolia.

When the term started out, There was nothing called United States (As a country or its current culture/s). And I am not sure if this happens outside the US anyway.

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#102
I don't really understand the author's conclusions about cost and shipping, and how RISC-V is cheaper and more accessible to people outside the US and Europe. He first talks about how getting $1 worth of chips can cost $60-$200 in shipping for him due to his location... but then by the end claims that RISC-V gives him "an architecture that arrives in my country at ten cents a part".

I don't get how both things can be true. The cost to ship something to Trinidad and Tobago has nothing to do with whether it's ARM or RISC-V; shipping the same weight of either kind of chips should cost exactly the same amount. Yes, maybe the chip cost itself of a particular ARM-based model is $0.15 while the equivalent RISC-V chip costs $0.10, but if the issue (for him and other people who live outside US/Europe) is that shipping costs are orders of magnitude more expensive than the thing being shipped, that chip-cost difference becomes irrelevant.

I think he does make a great point about how fragmentation does give you better optionality: ARM is sort of like cable TV where you have a small number of product categories that each bundle a particular set of features, whereas with RISC-V you design something bespoke that does exactly what you need and nothing more. But again, this isn't going to affect shipping costs.

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#103
Beautiful.

I read the "They Should Have Known Better" article and forgot it. I've seen this before. I know it's hot air and does not matter, and I can't afford to worry about things that don't matter.

When I say I've seen this before, I'm talking about ancient history: controversies so old and so laughable that they've been forgotten. When, for example, AMD handed the world AMD64/X86_64, the same things were said: fragmentation, legacy+flawed ISA, etc. That has not aged well, and "They Should Have Known Better" won't either.

The "fragmentation" argument has no merit. The jumble of extension names and profiles in RISC-V are, in fact, direct evidence that RISC-V is succeeding: it's the RISC-V ecosystem aggressively, collaboratively and successfully tackling pain points and solving them. This is what RISC-V is supposed to be doing, and it's doing it, and empires are being built on it.

Take this part: "The existence of CLIC and various proprietary 'fast IRQ' / auto-stacking extensions is an additional indictment."

CLIC is miraculous. It's an advanced embedded interrupt controller, and it's wonderful: it brings the equivalent of ARM's NVIC to RISC-V, except better. You can implement an extremely efficient scheduler that guarantees deadlock-free concurrency: bare-metal, real-time, hardware-accelerated "Fearless Concurrency," on an MCU with no RTOS![1] Its appeal is so great that, despite still being a draft spec, the leading RISC-V MCU designers are adopting it. Espressif's ESP32-S31 has it, for example. The chaotic emergence of this awesome thing is what is condemned as an "indictment."

Speaking of ESP32-S31, it's going to be a monster when silicon becomes available in quantity. This RV Embedded writing mentions MMUs a lot. Guess what? The S31 has an Sv32 MMU. It can run Linux. Not μClinux. Real Linux. It's already been done twice (that I know of) on the Espressif eval boards. People like Armstrong Subero are going to change the world with it.

That's the froth of RISC-V. The ground is shaking, and the peanut gallery of ISA wizards has no power over it. In a few years, after RISC-V has lain waste to our world of proprietary ISAs and Western IP regime rent seeking, "They Should Have Known Better" will look as silly to everyone as it already looks to me.

[1] https://rtic.rs/2/book/en/

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, and the only reason I'm partial to x86 and even some older ARMv cores is that there is a huge existing software ecosystem already available, reducing the need to develop new bootloaders and ports, as coding hours aren't free. CISC cores are treated as if they are a dirty word, but are more versatile for covering various applications.

PowerPC at least still has a living ecosystem, even from the bootloader level. GRUB can boot from an OpenFirmware system. There's also yaboot if you hate yourself. ;) I would personally love to see more Power Systems based projects. Everything is out there, just someone has to want to do something with it. Fedora Linux even fully supports POWER8+ little-endian systems, and Fedora KDE offers a live ISO you can install…

There have been some PowerISA implementations, https://libre-soc.org/openpower/ although libre project had a major setback a few years ago:

https://lists.libre-soc.org/pipermail/libre-soc-dev/2024-Sep...

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#107

My perspective using Nix is that it's hardly worth standardizing ISAs. Recompiling software is easy and we should have a Cambrian explosion of different designs. This is especially good if one scopes out a family of ISAs that are ABI compatible such that one can compile down to a semi-pre-optimized portable IR, and just do the last bit per ISA.

I disagree, compiler optimization and software ecosystem in general already take a really really really long time to build, and I think it'll take longer without a standardized low-level binary interface i.e. ISA to enable rapid distribution.

And the approach you mentioned here:

> a family of ISAs that are ABI compatible such that one can compile down to a semi-pre-optimized portable IR, and just do the last bit per ISA

I think this is basically WebAssembly and PTX, and one may argue, Java bytecode. Yet look at how much efforts and time it took for WASM runtimes and JVMs to actually produce performant machine code (the "last bit per ISA" you mentioned) for just a couple of architectures! (e.g. X86 and ARM). And I wouldn't surprised if NVIDIA pour even more money on building optimization pipeline from PTX to each of their different uArchs.

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The huge number of companies building RISC-V chips and really crazy optimizations that they are doing in all kinds of spaces are a very real counterweight to your notion. And RISC-V is just starting here with shoestring design and fab budget. Wait till all engineering teams really adopt it like Tenstorrent and NextSilicon and so on.

> really crazy optimizations that they are doing Any examples of this?

Here are a few random things I know of:

* Tenstorrent Ascalon has a neat optimization for certain LMUL>1 SIMD operations. LMUL=2 effectively unrolls the SIMD operation making it read two SIMD registers from every source and write two SIMD registers to the destination. There are however some instructions where LMUL=2 only needs to write to one registers, those are narrowing instructions (e.g. 64-bit to 32-bit truncation) and comparisons (which write to a LMUL=1 register with packed bits). When those SIMD instructions have to .vx form, which means one argument comes from a GPR, they now only need to write one SIMD register and need to read two SIMD registers. This matches what regular SIMD instructions need and because the silicon for the execution is much cheaper than register file ports, Ascalon can exexute these instructions in a single operation. So you can compare twice as many SIMD elements against a scalar, then you can against another SIMD register.

* Ventana (now under Qualcomm) talked a tiny bit about their fetch-block-optimizer and something that sounded like a L1i-trace cache. The fetch-block-optimizer would go to certain hot L1i entries and "optimize" them, with agressive instruction fusion including fusion of non-adjacent instructions.

* NextSilicon: Idk any details yet, but they said they handled RVC without increasing latency and that they've found a good solution for implement RVV and especially LMUL, which is a challange in out-of-order designs.

* OpenXiangShan: The fastes open-source CPU, is working on doing 2-ahead instruction fetch (the thing Zen5 added).

Now that being said, Ventana was bought by Qualcomm, we know the RISC-V team is still alive, but who knows if we'll ever see anything from that outside of Qualcomm?

The Tenstorrent Ascalon devboard is way behind schedule and on 12nm TSMC instead of a 4nm node the processor was designed for and is now supposed to clock at 1.38GHz. Though I think the delay has more to do with TT management problems then with the actual design.

While the scalar part of OpenXiangShan looks really good, the RVV imolementation is currently basically unusable. They want to have fix for the problems until the end of the year, but we'll have to see.

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#109

Working archived copy - https://archive.is/9FaRC

Is archive.is still a malicious site that DDOS's finnish security bloggers or has that been sorted?

Nope, that is still them.

Re: A third world engineer responds to “RISC-V: They should have known better”

#110
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly do not get this at all. HN remains very US-centric to me, and apart from some takes on tech rights, does not really remind me of my experience in DACH. The majority of HN's usership, posting, and comment activity occurs during peak EU work hours (3am-9am), stylistic patterns that are common for German-, French, and Polish-native speakers are increasingly prominent (eg. periods and spaces instead of comma…

While I appreciated your source 1.) I doubt 99% of Europeans work during 3am - 9am 2.) At least there can be other reasons: 2a.) EU times and African times are basically the same and Africa has a huge population. 2b.) India is closer timewise to EU/African time zones 2c.) What are about posts afterworks? " RL conversation topics in the Bay Area tech scene are entirely different from those on HN shows a massive diverg…

I assume the 3am-9am figure was in US Pacific time, in order to emphasize the difference from the working hours of people on the US west coast.
Post reply on HN