E.g. we can build a board around a MC68000 where we make it lock up forever in a bus cycle, waiting for a DTACK that doesn't arrive.
Some early microprocessors had clocked bus cycles without handshaking. They would put out an address on some address lines and signal some line together with a read/write indication, and then expect the transfer to be completed within some clock cycles. If nothing is attached to the address, they would read whatever values are on the bus, like maybe all 1's if it is an open drain system that requires the transmitting device to pull to ground to indicate zero.
I'd say that kind of thing belongs to a hall of shame; it requires software hacks to interface with anything that can't keep up with the prescribed bus cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_(electronics)
Ultimately... failure modes must arise because naive gate design simulation models can't determine issues in a computationally feasible time frame.
The consequences of "fixing" CDC prone design flaws makes a processor many times slower (8 to 16 times slower on my dumb attempt), and develops weird alien design features very different from Von Neumann architectures.
This is why we can't have nice things. =3
> Trapped/emulated/virtualized instructions may only time the trap, not the handler.
But I feel like that 12ms write to an ACPI IO port at current leaderboard position 8 is probably trapping to SMM and being handled there.
The actual typical hardware implementation just fetches the next 16-32 bytes from icache, shifts it to the correct alignment, and slams it into a bunch of parallel decoders which each attempts to decode one x86 instruction per byte.
The next cycle, the first 1-6 non-overlapping valid instructions are accepted into a queue for further decoding. The NOP almost certainly takes up space in this queue.
At no point does RIP get incremented by one. There isn't even a single physical RIP register to increment, the CPU is "executing" dozens or even hundreds of RIPs in parallel.
What’s that law called about programmers wasting all the compute on abstraction?
There has been a ton of work to improve throughput, but that's often come at the cost of latency, because a great technique to improve throughput is batching, to avoid the per-task overhead cost.
We've also added many layers of abstraction.
A seminal example is Dan Luu's "computer latency" table (2017) https://danluu.com/input-lag/, which measures the time between a keypress and visible changes on the screen, and wherein an Apple IIe has latency 5x lower than a Lenovo X1 Carbon on Windows.
From some perspective, you could say that the Lenovo on Windows example is an impressive feat of engineering, considering all the subsystems involved (USB, interrupt dispatcher, input layer, windowing system, double-buffering...)
This throughput-over-latency tradeoff can be seen across the entire computer landscape design.
If some app responds in 10ms or less, it is INTERACTIVE.
makes you think.
I looked it up and it is .1 seconds (100ms)
The basic advice regarding response times has been about the same for thirty years [Miller 1968; Card et al. 1991]:
- 0.1 second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting instantaneously, meaning that no special feedback is necessary except to display the result.
- 1.0 second is about the limit for the user's flow of thought to stay uninterrupted, even though the user will notice the delay. Normally, no special feedback is necessary during delays of more than 0.1 but less than 1.0 second, but the user does lose the feeling of operating directly on the data.
- 10 seconds is about the limit for keeping the user's attention focused on the dialogue. For longer delays, users will want to perform other tasks while waiting for the computer to finish, so they should be given feedback indicating when the computer expects to be done. Feedback during the delay is especially important if the response time is likely to be highly variable, since users will then not know what to expect.
from Jakob Nielsen:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-...
less readable but the original paper:
https://www.yusufarslan.net/sites/yusufarslan.net/files/uplo...
Humans can perceive much smaller latencies.
If you look at the Card & Miller reference, at least some humans can perceive differences in ~50ms vs 100ms latencies when typing (in my limited testing, it’s likely you can!). There’s some newer research I don’t have handy that I believe found error rates decreased and NSAT improved until around at least 30ms (if not 20ms).
On that note, humans can definitely distinguish 60hz vs 120hz reliably (about 8ms faster per frame).
Even faster: with a reference (eg when dragging on a touchscreen), humans can distinguish down to at least 1ms vs 10ms of latency: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
And you can probably distinguish metronomes that are off by about 1-2ms. Much smaller for other things (like metronomes that slightly slower or faster than one another).
This is a special interest of mine XD
I wonder what the actual limit on this `fxrstor64` is right now. If you can stall the PCIe bus for that long, then why not indefinitely? Certainly there's no forward progress guarantee here.
It would be much more interesting to know the results if you're only allowed to use main memory.