Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!cica!gatech!hubcap!dinucci
From: dinucci@cse.ogc.edu (David C. DiNucci)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Re: New Bell Award
Message-ID: <6215@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 8 Aug 89 18:37:33 GMT
Lines: 31
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu

In article <6202@hubcap.clemson.edu> notes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes:
>Here is an item that should be of interest to this group:
>
>
>           1989 Bell Award for Perfect Benchmark Rules
>
>(2)  More than 16 Processors:  The measure is the same as in  1.,
>     except  that the computer system has more than 16 processors
>     and all processors must participate in the execution of each
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     benchmark.
      ^^^^^^^^^

This rule is non-sensical, and seems to be due to the belief in parallelism
for its own sake, instead of as a means to solve a problem.  A processor is
a resource to a computing system, just as memory is.  It is safe to say that
most readers would find the above rule atrocious if it referred to memory
(e.g. "all 4-MB of memory must be used in the execution of each benchmark").

In fact, if there is insufficient parallelism in some of the benchmarks,a
smart programmer would let some of the processors do senseless work, simply
to meet the letter of the law.  Is this somehow guarded against?


Perhaps someone can explain a rationale behind the above rule?

-Dave
-- 
David C. DiNucci                UUCP:  ..ucbvax!tektronix!ogccse!dinucci
Oregon Graduate Center          CSNET: dinucci@cse.ogc.edu
Beaverton, Oregon