Intel Patents Thread Scheduling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]killabanks[/nom]sounds like maybe a patent for hyperthreading?[/citation]
It certainly does, at least as an improvement to it. A major disadvantage of Hyper-threading in the P4 was that two threads running on the same processor could interfere with each others cache lines. It is possible that the reason behind the reintroduction of Hyper-threading in the Nehalem architecture was that Intel was able to implement this technology, or something similar, and as a result was able to achieve a larger performance gain from Hyper-threading.
 
[citation][nom]kensingtron[/nom]Did anyone else find the details of this article flew over their head?[/citation]

As do most things when it's in regards to patents. You practically need a doctorate to read 'em and a lawyer to write them.
 
I dont know... all those useless calculation for every thread... it will take a bit of bandwidth...
Does it worth it ?
Then we wonder why a quad core is not 4 times powerfull than a smame clock single core.
 
[citation][nom]jackt[/nom]?Then we wonder why a quad core is not 4 times powerfull than a smame clock single core.[/citation]

Because cores don't scale perfectly? Plus you also have to factor in the software you're using, cache, architecture, pipelining, 32- or 64-bit etc.
 
This is like saying im going to Patent how many people go into and come out of the super market at the same time. Something has to be done about the patent system !!!!!!!!
 
Between the time of the filing and the time the patent got approved (let's just say April 2007 to Feb 2012), if AMD came out with something similar in their cpu design, did AMD violate Intel's patent? Like a crime is breaking the law and if there is no law then there is no crime. You can't apply the law retroactively. Any legal experts out there to enlighten us on this?
 
I suspect Intel's filing was motivated by an interest in defense. They prefer not to be extorted and games rules require this. As to AMD, get real: why bother. Intel is achieving what they want in the marketplace. Conduct which might draw a foul is neither helpful nor required.
 
[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]Between the time of the filing and the time the patent got approved (let's just say April 2007 to Feb 2012), if AMD came out with something similar in their cpu design, did AMD violate Intel's patent? Like a crime is breaking the law and if there is no law then there is no crime. You can't apply the law retroactively. Any legal experts out there to enlighten us on this?[/citation]

Under current US patent law, priority is awarded to the 'first to invent' something. So in order for AMD to prevail under your scenario above, they would have to demonstrate that they conceived and reduced to practice the claimed invention before Intel did. To show prior conception, they would have to have lab notes and other written evidence predating Intel's, showing that they thought of the idea before Intel did.

Usually the first to file a patent application on the idea is taken as constructive reduction to practice. However if AMD could show they were diligently (i.e., no long breaks) working on the invention, they could supercede Intel in what is called an interference proceeding and be awarded priority.

However under the American Inventor's Act, which goes into full effect this year IIRC, US patent law is being harmonized with European and Japanese patent law, which awards priority to the first to file a patent application. So that means if you file an application first, you are automatically awarded priority no matter how much work the competition can show they did before you filed, or did for that matter.

However I also think that AMD & Intel have a cross-licensing agreement in effect which may mean that AMD gets to use Intel's patents in exchange for the X64 patent that belongs to AMD. Not sure of the particulars of that agreement, so I dunno if it covers new stuff like this. But, if true, then this patent would deter somebody like ARM if they wanna get into hyperthreading and use the same or not-patentably-distinct (obvious) variation on Intel's patented technology, whereas AMD would not have to worry about it.
 
[citation][nom]mrkdilkington[/nom]I wasn't aware you could patent an algorithm.[/citation]
Actually an algorithm is exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be patented. It takes a lot of critical thinking and design to come up with a solid algorithm. It is not a given like a law of physics, it is absolutely intellectual property.

In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be patented. Not UI design bullshit, but actual technology. What is more, you can probably bet that Intel will not use this as a sword against competition, it is not how they role.
 
[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]Actually an algorithm is exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be patented. It takes a lot of critical thinking and design to come up with a solid algorithm. It is not a given like a law of physics, it is absolutely intellectual property.In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be patented. Not UI design bullshit, but actual technology. What is more, you can probably bet that Intel will not use this as a sword against competition, it is not how they role.[/citation]

As a former game coder I disagree.
A good algorithm is simply providing the most effective or logical solution for a given situation.
As such it is not a "law of physics" but a "law of logic" than one patents.

This should not be confused with the algorithm for say the AI of a game. That's not necessarily dictated by outright logic of course.


 
All those process won't eat CPU cycles? Maby the algorithm was made to accelerate the CPU, but itself may slow down the CPU, so at the end, the performance is the same until we ameliorate the code.

It always begin like this...
 
[citation][nom]bloc97[/nom]All those process won't eat CPU cycles? Maby the algorithm was made to accelerate the CPU, but itself may slow down the CPU, so at the end, the performance is the same until we ameliorate the code.It always begin like this...[/citation]

You are looking at one cycle in billions. Literally. if it checks only a few times a second a core nearing it's threshold and splitting threads onto other cores, the extra power savings (intelligently disabling other cores) and performance gains (never having to worry about wasting user time) is is a superfluous concern.

Not only that but they can run these checks using some part of uncore, and not have any hit at all and enabling a much faster update frequency.
 
Yes!!! Intel being awarded a trivial patent must mean bad news for AMD! Please excuse me while I go wank it!

Ahem...

This is another fine example of a stupid patent. Operating systems have traditionally assigned processes to cores, not hardware. Like when you go into task manager in Windows and assign process XYZ.exe to CPU0, CPU1 and CPU2. With all of the operating systems in the world, with all of their unique thread schedulers, are you trying to tell me that Intel just invented something revolutionary? Or is the fact that the CPU is now ignoring the OS revolutionary?
 
In very basic terms, this is "auto multi-threading". It's taking single threaded code and looking to see what chunks can be executed next to each other at the same time without screwing things up.
 
AMD won't give a crap about this patent because their CPUs don't use hyperthreading, they use an actual core instead
 
People, look beyond face value, our civilization's evolution is effectively stagnating below the weight of **corporations patenting ideas**.

Things like computing should be a joint effort, not a pissing contest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom