8.1 Symmetric multiprocessing hardware  (Page 6/3)

In [link] , we viewed an ideal shared-memory multiprocessor. In this section, we look in more detail at how such a system is actually constructed. The primary advantage of these systems is the ability for any CPU to access all of the memory and peripherals. Furthermore, the systems need a facility for deciding among themselves who has access to what, and when, which means there will have to be hardware support for arbitration. The two most common architectural underpinnings for symmetric multiprocessing are buses and crossbars . The bus is the simplest of the two approaches. [link] shows processors connected using a bus. A bus can be thought of as a set of parallel wires connecting the components of the computer (CPU, memory, and peripheral controllers), a set of protocols for communication, and some hardware to help carry it out. A bus is less expensive to build, but because all traffic must cross the bus, as the load increases, the bus eventually becomes a performance bottleneck.

A shared-memory multiprocessor

A typical bus architecture

A crossbar is a hardware approach to eliminate the bottleneck caused by a single bus. A crossbar is like several buses running side by side with attachments to each of the modules on the machine — CPU, memory, and peripherals. Any module can get to any other by a path through the crossbar, and multiple paths may be active simultaneously. In the 4×5 crossbar of [link] , for instance, there can be four active data transfers in progress at one time. In the diagram it looks like a patchwork of wires, but there is actually quite a bit of hardware that goes into constructing a crossbar. Not only does the crossbar connect parties that wish to communicate, but it must also actively arbitrate between two or more CPUs that want access to the same memory or peripheral. In the event that one module is too popular, it’s the crossbar that decides who gets access and who doesn’t. Crossbars have the best performance because there is no single shared bus. However, they are more expensive to build, and their cost increases as the number of ports is increased. Because of their cost, crossbars typically are only found at the high end of the price and performance spectrum.

Whether the system uses a bus or crossbar, there is only so much memory bandwidth to go around; four or eight processors drawing from one memory system can quickly saturate all available bandwidth. All of the techniques that improve memory performance (as described in [link] ) also apply here in the design of the memory subsystems attached to these buses or crossbars.

A crossbar

The effect of cache

The most common multiprocessing system is made up of commodity processors connected to memory and peripherals through a bus. Interestingly, the fact that these processors make use of cache somewhat mitigates the bandwidth bottleneck on a bus-based architecture. By connecting the processor to the cache and viewing the main memory through the cache, we significantly reduce the memory traffic across the bus. In this architecture, most of the memory accesses across the bus take the form of cache line loads and flushes. To understand why, consider what happens when the cache hit rate is very high. In [link] , a high cache hit rate eliminates some of the traffic that would have otherwise gone out across the bus or crossbar to main memory. Again, it is the notion of “locality of reference” that makes the system work. If you assume that a fair number of the memory references will hit in the cache, the equivalent attainable main memory bandwidth is more than the bus is actually capable of. This assumption explains why multiprocessors are designed with less bus bandwidth than the sum of what the CPUs can consume at once.