Anyone willing to summarize those mistakes here, for those who can’t watch the video rn?
Linus Torvalds says RISC-V will make the same mistakes as Arm and x86
Submitted 3 months ago by neme@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
shaked_coffee@feddit.it 3 months ago
transientpunk@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
He doesn’t post what the mistakes will be. He said that he fears that because hardware people aren’t software people, that they will make the same mistakes that x86 made, which were then made by Arm later.
He did mention that fixing those mistakes was faster for Arm than x86, so that brings hope that fixing the mistakes on Risc V will take less time
MonkderDritte@feddit.de 3 months ago
I think it was something with instruction sets?
SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 3 months ago
Basically, his concern is that if they are not cooperating with software engineers that the product won’t be able to run AAA turns.
It’s more of a warning than a prediction.
JayDee@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Instruction creep maybe? Pretty sure I’ve also seen stuff that seems to show that Torvalds is anti-speculative-execution due to its vulnurabilities, so he could also be referring to that.
Traister101@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Counterintuitive but more instructions are usually better. It enables you (but let’s be honest the compiler) to be much more specific which usually have positive performance implications for minimal if any binary size. Take for example SIMD which is hyper specific math operations on large chunks of data. These instructions are extremely specific but when properly utilized have huge performance improvements.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This is probably correct.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
smells like linus thinks there is going to be an ever increasing tech debt, and honestly, i think i agree with him on that one.
RISCV is likely going to eventually overstep it’s role in someplaces, and bits and pieces of it will become archaic over time.
The gap between hardware and software level abstraction is huge, and that’s really hard to fill properly. You just need a strict design criteria to get around that one.
I’m personally excited to see where RISCV goes, but maybe what we truly need is a universal software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU architectures providing maximum flexibility.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 months ago
but maybe what we truly need is a universal software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU architectures providing maximum flexibility.
I think that’s called Java.
greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Or Emacs
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
but but, minecraft in java bad and stinky??
ICastFist@programming.dev 3 months ago
Then again, if you don’t have the JVM/JRE, Java won’t work, so first you need to write it in another language and in such a way that it works across a bunch of different ARM and x86 processors.
arality@programming.dev 3 months ago
software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU architectures providing maximum flexibility.
I’ve only done a little bare metal programming, but I really don’t see how this is possible. Everything I’ve used is so vastly different, I think it would be impossible to create something like that, and have it work well.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
theoretically you could do it by defining an architecture operations standard, and then adhering to that somewhat when designing a CPU. While providing hardware flexibility as you could simply, not implement certain features, or implement certain other features. Might be an interesting idea.
That or something that would require minimal “instruction translation” between different architectures.
nixcamic@lemmy.world 3 months ago
universal software level architecture that can be used on various different CPU
Oh we already have dozens of those haha
itsnotits@lemmy.world 3 months ago
overstep its* role in some places
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
username checks out
chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
[deleted]ricdeh@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Sorry, but that is completely wrong. RISC-V is an ISA, nothing less, nothing more, and it is completely, 100% open-source. The licensing of the hardware implementations is a different matter, but that’s outside of the scope of RISC-V. As I said, it is just an ISA.
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 months ago
There’s plenty of designs out there that you can load onto an FPGA or, funds permitting, send off to a fab to burn into silicon.
lps@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Well regardless, the world needs alternatives that are outside of restrictive US patent law and large monopolistic control. Thank god for pioneers:)
erwan@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
ARM Inc is an English company owned by a Japanese company
zaphod@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Pretty sure it’s a plc, not and Inc.
SeattleRain@lemmy.world 3 months ago
It’s open source nature protects against that. People mistake Linus as being in the same boat as Stallman but Linus was only open source by circumstance, he kind infamously doesn’t seem to appreciate the role open source played in his own success.
exu@feditown.com 3 months ago
Only the core part of the ISA is open source. Vendors are free to add whatever proprietary extensions they want and sell the resulting CPU.
You might get such a CPU to boot, but getting all functionality might be the same fight it is with arm CPUs currently.
ricdeh@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I’ll say to you what I said to the other commentor: RISC-V is an ISA, nothing less, nothing more, and it is 100% open-source. It is not trying to be anything else. Yes, hardware implementations from processor vendors can have different licensing and be proprietary, but that is not the fault of RISC-V, nor does that have anything else to do with it. RISC-V, as an ISA, and only an ISA, is completely open-source and not liable for the bs of OEMs.
cmhe@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Protects against what?
What I read it here is just a vague critic from him of the relation between hard- and software developer. Which will not change just because the ISA is open source. It will take some iterations until this is figured out, this is inevevable.
Soft- and hardware developers are experts in their individual fields, there are not many with enough know-how of both fields to be effective.
Linus also points out, that because of ARM before, RISC-V might have a easier time, on the software side, but mistakes will still happen.
IMO, this article doesn’t go into enough depths of the RISC-V specific issues, that it warrants RISC-V in the title, it would apply to any up and coming new ISA.
itsnotits@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Its* open-source nature
BobGnarley@lemm.ee 3 months ago
RISC-V is the only shot we have at usable open source hardware. I really, really hope it takes off.
wewbull@feddit.uk 3 months ago
Whilst some open source implementations exist, RISC-V is not open source. It’s an open standard. i.e. there’s no license fee to implement it.
BobGnarley@lemm.ee 3 months ago
I didn’t know that I thought all RISC-V was open source :( I’m not as familiar with it as I’d like to be. I might just have to dive into it more and change that soon
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Even if that happens, still open sauce
NoMoreCocaine@lemmynsfw.com 3 months ago
Not really? I mean, only partially.
magnolia_mayhem@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Maybe, but the point is that it’s open. There’s a much higher chance that one of the companies that builds parts will make good decisions.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 months ago
He’s being misquoted by the headline. He FEARS that it will make the same mistakes. Let’s be clear about RISC is here in the first place: an open-source hardware architecture. Anyone with enough money and willpower to fork it for their needs will do so. It’s anyone’s game still. He’s just simply saying that the same type of people who took over ARM and x86 are doomed to make the same mistakes. Not that RISC-V is bad.
bitfucker@programming.dev 3 months ago
I’m being pedantic here but RISC-V is not a hardware architecture as in something that you can send to a manufacturer and get it made. It is an ISA. How you implement those ISA is up to you. Yes there are open implementations but I think it is important to distinguish it.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
isnt ARM the same?