Computer architecture seems to be a very difficult area of computer engineering that I think needs further material. There are great conceptual explanations of how different units work with each other, particularly concerning registers in an MOS 6502 processor.
Here is a basic program counter:
https://www.clear.rice.edu/elec422/1996/bomb/finalmw.html
https://www.clear.rice.edu/elec422/1996/bomb/IMG00003.GIF
I've been perusing through a variety of textbooks particularly the following on Computer Systems:
David Patterson, John Hennessy: Computer Organization and Design, revised 4th edition, Morgan Kaufman, 2011. [Buy]
Randal Bryant, David O'Hallaron: Computer Systems, Prentice Hall, 2011. [Buy]
But I do not find any gate level circuitry drawings of program counters and other registers inside a processor.
It would be awesome for personal enrichment if anyone knows where I can find these schematics, it would be interesting to see what these look like in basic AND, OR, XOR, etc gates!
EDIT: I'm not particularly looking for a book, or resource, but rather ideally if anyone in our community has experience with drawing circuit diagrams for something like a program counter. I would be interested in seeing what they look like.
Here's a counter using logic gates http://www.northdownfarm.co.uk/rory/tim/logic.htm
Learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiAbLltaz4A
Bunch of t flip flops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_(electronics)
Related
why exactly the program module concept came into picture ? I read in one book that it is to avoid the timing violations. How ?
Any suggestions or help is highly appreciated.
Thank You
Sam
Normally, a question like this is considered to broad and opinionated for SO. But since I was directly involved in the development and standardization of SystemVerilog, I can present a few facts from an article I wrote about it.
Program blocks came directly from a donation of the Vera language to SystemVerilog by Synopsys , and try to mimic the scheduling semantics that a PLI application has interacting with a Verilog simulator.
A program block's original purpose in SystemVerilog was to avoid race conditions (not timing violations) between sampling and driving signals between the DUT and the Testbench. It also controlled starting and termination of the "test".
Since its introduction, a number of other features within SystemVerilog have subsumed the need for program blocks as I explain in my article.
I'm using Beckhoff's BK9000 (Ethernet TCP/IP Bus Couplers) with other KL blocks to connect the switch. I'd like to choose the switch which fits this bus coupler, but I noticed that there are two choices for the switch, NPN or PNP.
According to the website,
Many modern PLC input cards can be configured and wired to be either 'sinking' or 'sourcing' although it will usually necessitate all inputs on a particular input card being configured the same.
Which switch should I choose? Is BK9000 a sourcing or sinking device? Or doesn't it matter at all?
I'm sorry if I'm asking a silly question. I tried to find more information and tutorial, but couldn't find the practical explanation (most of them were just about the general explanation of PNP/NPN or sourcing/sinking).
The BK9000 is only the coupler and doesn't determine whether it is sinking or sourcing. It is the KL cards you choose that determine it. You can choose versions of the KL cards that are either sourcing (supplying the positive voltage), such as the KL2408 or sinking, such as the KL2488
I would like to know what is the difference between verilog and assembly language.
Next semester we will be working with micro-controllers, but I would like to learn a little bit about it before the semester begins. I've been doing a lot of research about low-level programming, and so far I have gained a good understanding in assembly language, but I get confused trying to understand Verilog and VHDL?
Verilog and VHDL are completely different languages for describing hardware, for purposes of programming FPGAs.
FPGAs are devices that can be on-the-fly programmed to implement any sort of digital logic (and sometimes analog too).
So using verilog or VHDL, I can design a circuit that creates a couple latches, some twos-complement adders, a mux, and a clock source, and suddenly you've just designed a circuit that can calculate. You could then take the output from the VHDL compiler (or whatever its called), "download" it to the FPGA, and now you actually have some hardware that can be used to do calculation.
Of course, you can use FPGAs to implement all sorts of complicated stuff - even a full custom CPU. One uses verilog and VHDL to design the circuits that are programmed to FPGAs. Those circuits could implement something simple like a ripple counter, or something more complex like a LCD driver, or something even more complex like a USB transceiver. You can go from as simple as a few latches to as complicated as a fully operating CPU; as long as its digital hardware, you can make whatever you want with VHDL and some FPGAs.
To clarify further -
"Assembly language" typically refers to raw instructions given to some sort of CPU. Of course, there are many different types of CPUs (x86, ARM, SPARC, MIPS) and further many different variants of those types of CPUs. Each CPU has its own instruction set.
Machine code is complete, fully specified, ready to be executed instructions. Assembly languages allow you type instructions from your CPU's instruction set in plain text, use labels and such, and describe the memory layout structure of the program. Put the assembly through an assembler and out comes machine code in your CPUs machine instruction set.
You could design your own CPU from scratch using VHDL. As you're designing the CPU, you would have it implement your own custom instruction set. From there, you could take the VHDL for your CPU, compile it, write it to an FPGA and have your own custom CPU. Then you could start writing programs for your made-up CPU using your custom instruction set by writing a custom assembler. Some friends of mine in college did this for giggles.
For example, you know how most CPUs are load-store, register based CPUs? Instructions tend to go something like this:
Load the value '1' into register A
Load the value '2' into register B
Add register A and register B, storing result in register A
(You just added 1 + 2! Heh)
That sort of model of computation happens to be the most popular, but it's not the only way you could do computation. What if you had a stack based CPU, where you push values onto a hardware stack, and then computations work with the values on the top of the stack, pushing results back onto the stack.
For instance:
Push 1 onto the stack (stack current contains: 1)
Push 2 onto the stack (stack current contains: 2 1)
Push 3 onto the stack (stack currently contains: 3 2 1 )
Add
'Add' takes the top two elements on the stack, adds them together, and pushes the result on the top of the stack.
Stack now contains: 5 1
Add
Stack now contains: 6
Neat isn't it? As far as a computation model goes, it has its advantages - operands tend to be short, and need fewer bits. Smaller instructions means that the CPU can be faster.
The problem is that no such processor like this exists anymore.
But if you knew what you were doing, you could design one in VHDL, program it to an FGPA, and suddenly you have one of the only operating stack-based processors in existence.
Say, if you were doing a masters thesis, for instance, you might dig around and find out that virtual-machine-based programming languages like C# and Java compile down to a bytecode for a CPU that doesn't really exist, but the model for that CPU proves useful for making code portable. You might find out that the imaginary machines used by these languages are based on stack-based processor models. If you were looking for something interesting to do, perhaps you write in VHDL a processor that natively implements the Java bytecode language. Now you'd be the only person that has a computer that can directly run Java.
Verilog and VHDL are both HDLs (Hardware description languages) used mainly for describing digital electronics. Their targets may be FPGA or ASIC (custom silicon).
Assembly level on the other hand is using an processors instruction set to perform a series of calculations. Every thing executed on a computer eventually ends up as an assembly level instruction. One example of an instruction set would be the x86 ISA.
Summary: Verilog, VHDL describe hardware. Assembly is the low level program being executed on a processor.
I was working on a Simulink model recently and was using Goto and From blocks to keep a very busy system from becoming a twisted mess of wires. I was informed that I was not to use Goto and From blocks as they are considered bad style (at least, according to my employer).
While I hold that wires should be kept connected whenever possible, I believe that Goto and From blocks can significantly improve the readability of a system/subsystem if the model would result in lots of crossed wires otherwise; especially if the blocks can be color-coded (e.g. purple Goto block goes to all the purple From blocks).
I'd supply an image of the subsystem I'm working with, but I'm not sure I can put it on here. The subsystem itself has about 12 subsystem blocks (and possibly more later) within it, each with two bus-type outputs. The first output of each subsystem goes to a Bus Creator block, and the second output of each goes to a second Bus Creator block. Since the subsystem are aligned vertically and the Bus Creators are to the right, this results in many crossed wires. I was using Goto and From blocks to clean up the system.
I can supply an image of a smaller, but similar model that I put together for this question.
For a system with on the order of 12 subsystems, this becomes very busy. I was using Goto and From blocks to connect the subsystems and the Bus Creators without a plethora of crossed wires.
I believe my employer may be carrying the stigma of using goto statements from text-based languages and applying it to Goto/From blocks in Simulink. Generally speaking, is using Goto and From blocks in this way (or any way) considered to be bad style?
The Mathworks Automotive Advisory Board has published some modeling guidelines (PDF) that include usage of Goto/From. The rules they list are:
Do not have subsystems that are floating, i.e. all inputs / output ports are connected via Gotos. One of the great things about Simulink is the ability to determine signal flow with only a cursory visual inspection, do not destroy this by linking everything with Gotos. At least have one feed-forward and one feedback loop between subsystems connected by signal lines.
My personal opinion on feedback signals is that they should all be connected with signal lines, but I'm sure you can come up with cases where drawing all of them clutters the model.
The second guideline is about the scope of the Goto tag; keep the visibility local as much as possible.
I feel setting visibility to scoped is acceptable also as long as you're not using the matching From more than a couple of levels downstream from the Goto. I've yet to come across a legitimate need for a global Goto tag.
So, all Goto usage isn't bad, and you're right that it can improve readability in some cases. That being said, I don't think Gotos are justified for the picture above. I realize it is just an example, but I should point out that if the buses being created are virtual that order of the inputs at the creator doesn't matter, and rearranging Bus Create and Mux block inputs can work wonders for readability.
The problem with the guidelines above are that there's room for bending them, and developers on your team might do just that. Even if everyone is diligent about following them at first, you may run afoul of these guidelines one day, a long time from now, when you redraw that section of the model for refining / adding functionality. Rearranging inputs and outputs can be especially irritating in middle of implementing some cool new feature. That may be the reason your employer chose to impose a blanket ban. It is inconvenient in some cases, but is easier to enforce.
Ever looked at the Computer Language Benchmarks Game (formerly known as the Great Language Shootout)?
Perl has some pretty healthy competition there at the moment. It also occurs to me that there's probably some places that Perl's scores could be improved. The biggest one is in the chameneos-redux script right now—the Perl version runs the worst out of any language: 1,626 times slower than the C baseline solution!
There are some restrictions on how the programs can be made and optimized, and there is Perl's interpreted runtime penalty, but 1,626 times? There's got to be something that can get the runtime of this program way down.
Taking a look at the source code and the challenge, how can the speed be improved?
I ran the source code through the Devel::SmallProf profiler. The profile output is a little too verbose to post here, but you can see the results yourself using $ perl -d:SmallProf chameneos.pl 10000 (no need to run it for 6000000 meetings unless you really want to!) See perlperf for more details on some profiling tools in Perl.
It turns out that using semaphores is the major bottleneck. The lion's share of total CPU time is spent on checking whether a semaphore is locked or not. Although I haven't had enough time to look at why the source code uses semaphores, it may be that you can work around having to use semaphores altogether. That's probably your best shot at improving the code's performance.
As Zaid posted, Thread::Semaphore is rather slow. One optimization could be to use the implicit locks on shared variables instead of them. It should be faster, though I suspect it won't be faster by much.
In general, Perl's threading implementation sucks for any kind of usage that requires a lot of interthread communication. It's very suitable for tasks with little communication (as unlike CPython's threads and CRuby's threads they are actually preemptive).
It may be possible to improve that situation, we need better primitives.
I have a version based on another version from Jesse Millikian, which I think was never published.
I think it may run ~ 7x faster than the current entry, and uses standard modules all around. I'm not sure if it actually complies with all the rules though.
I've tried the forks module on it, but I think it slows it down a bit.
Anyone tried s/threads/forks/ on the Perl entry? Or Coro / Coro::MP, though the latter would probably trigger the 'interesting alternative implementations' clause.