Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
tomshardware.com
Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#2how long until we get something like spectre for this...
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#3how long until we get something like spectre for this...
I doubt it, based on TFA it looks like it has more in common with multi-issue pipelining and ooe than speculative execution.
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#4(Dynamic?) Software Bulldozer? What could possibly go wrong?
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#5> On the software side, the system uses either a JIT compiler, static compiler, or binary instrumentation to split a single-threaded program into code segments to assign different blocks to different cores. It injects special instructions for flow control, register passing, and sync behavior, enabling the hardware to maintain execution integrity.
Itanium is back again?
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#6The headline is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, no patents have been granted yet. Intel filed patent applications. Failure to distinguish between applications and granted patents is far too common.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250217157A1/en
See the sidebar on the right? Look at "Application US18/401,460 events". Note that the status is "Pending" and not "Active" or "Expired". Google isn't always accurate here as their data could be out of date, but they're accurate enough for me to not look further. You can check the other countries as well to see all are pending.
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#7> On the software side, the system uses either a JIT compiler, static compiler, or binary instrumentation to split a single-threaded program into code segments to assign different blocks to different cores. It injects special instructions for flow control, register passing, and sync behavior, enabling the hardware to maintain execution integrity. Itanium is back again?
As bad as it worked out I don't think Itanium tried to break Amdahl's law. And that is how I understand this magic multicore execution of single-thread code.
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#8> On the software side, the system uses either a JIT compiler, static compiler, or binary instrumentation to split a single-threaded program into code segments to assign different blocks to different cores. It injects special instructions for flow control, register passing, and sync behavior, enabling the hardware to maintain execution integrity. Itanium is back again?
As bad as it worked out I don't think Itanium tried to break Amdahl's law. And that is how I understand this magic multicore execution of single-thread code.
With Itanium they assumed that "smart compilers" would locally parallelize programs.
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#9how long until we get something like spectre for this...
I doubt it, based on TFA it looks like it has more in common with multi-issue pipelining and ooe than speculative execution.
There's a lot of processor state in each core which would be a great place to hide exploits when the microcode is assuming synced operation between cores.
Re: Intel Patents 'Software Defined Supercore'
#10Aka FPGA