News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by MrBuddyCasino on Saturday December 05, 2020 @05:34AM (#25313423)
Consider that CPUs on newer nodes consume less energy. There are special embedded low-power chips (eg TI 16 bit MSP), but they are NOT running Linux, and they never will. They couldn't reach their power targets running Linux, not even close. So I'm not sure obsolete designs being manufactured on old process node being kept alive is a net win. The special low-power cores are unaffected, as they are not running Linux anyway, and the ones that do aren't particularly low power.

There is a sweet spot for low cost chips, I think its 40nm due to mask costs, manufacturing gets exponentially more expensive from that point on, which is the reason they haven't upgraded. Anyone knows if there are signs this cost is coming down over time?

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by amelius on Saturday December 05, 2020 @06:15AM (#25313636)
> Consider that CPUs on newer nodes consume less energy.

I think the main point is to use 32bit on new nodes too. Using 32bit instead of 64bit is always more energy efficient unless perhaps you really need 64bit for your application, which most applications don't.

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by MrBuddyCasino on Saturday December 05, 2020 @06:38AM (#25313781)
This is a good point. I think this won't happen though, because smaller nodes are that much more expensive, and the market for energy-efficient 32bit CPUs isn't nearly large enough to fund development. There likely won't be another ARMv7.

What I think will happen is that the huge amount of money that goes into developing mobile phone SoCs, which are clearly trending towards 64Bit while still requiring low power consumption, will cause that technology to trickle down and be used in ever lower cost markets as time passes and those initial costs have been recouped. The Apple M1, as a system, is clearly crazy power efficient, even at 5nm. And again, if you need an ultra-low power sleep mode, because you only wake up once a day to send some sensor data out, its probably not running Linux in the first place.

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by arnd on Saturday December 05, 2020 @04:39PM (#25318657)
I think you get into practical problems at some point. WikiChip lists a 28nm Cortex-A7 core at 0.48mm², with every node shrink (20nm, 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, ...) you can halve that, but adding 64-bit support to a core might only add about 10%.

You can't make chips arbitrarily small, because you end up wasting more of your wafer for the area between the dies and for the wire bond pads. If the chip size stays the same but the CPU gets smaller, most of the chip is for off-core components and the CPU has less impact on the total cost and power consumption.

You could use more complex CPU cores, or simply more cores, for better performance, but then you also need a faster memory interface (wider buses, LD-DDR4+ instead of DDR3, ...) to make actually use of the performance. These lead to higher memory capacity as well, but then you can't actually use the available memory as you run into 32-bit addressing limits.

I wouldn't rule out shrinks of existing 32-bit SoC families to 22nm or below to lower cost once those processes get cheap enough and there is still demand for compatibility, but there is a good chance that 28nm SoCs is where 32-bit ends. (note that I'm not talking about the dozen or so additional ARC/Xtensa/RV32/Cortex-M/... microcontroller cores on high-end SoCs, as those are not the ones running Linux).

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by viraptor on Saturday December 05, 2020 @06:25AM (#25313697)
Why do you think it's always more energy efficient?
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by amelius on Saturday December 05, 2020 @06:29AM (#25313728)
Because less transistors need to switch.
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by viraptor on Saturday December 05, 2020 @06:42AM (#25313800)
I'm honestly curious how that plays out in practice. 64b Intel CPUs can run in 32b mode. If we count actual switching then we would end up with ~same usage. But in 64b mode it gives us both longer pointers and offsets it with fewer instructions on vector operations.

I could not find any actual paper with real use case comparison. Have you got one?

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by amelius on Saturday December 05, 2020 @07:02AM (#25313927)
I haven't got a reference, and would be interested in one too.

Sure, if you use any kind of 32bit mode then you'd use less energy in theory. But if we leave the responsibility to the software developer, then we all know what happens :)

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by arp242 on Saturday December 05, 2020 @08:34AM (#25314428)
How much energy would this save? Of all the energy usage on the planet, this seems like it would be really really tiny.
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by arnd on Saturday December 05, 2020 @08:39AM (#25314474)
That sweet spot for cost has already moved from 40nm to 28nm for most of the market. The new SAM9X60 I mentioned is still on 40nm, but it's a tiny chip and all new Cortex-A7 SoCs and things like the Ingenic X2000 are on 28nm because of overall cost for that design point.

The sweet spot for power efficiency has apparently moved from 28nm to 22nm, which uses less energy than either 28nm HKMG or 14nm FinFET and is also closing in on 28nm on cost.

There no mainstream 32-bit cores on 22nm or below (yet), so there is a good chance that the coming generation of low-cost 64-bit SoCs on 22nm will beat all 32-bit chips on performance, power consumption and cost.

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by MrBuddyCasino on Saturday December 05, 2020 @04:38PM (#25318649)
Thanks, this is what makes HN good.
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by pantalaimon on Saturday December 05, 2020 @06:27AM (#25313713)
> Consider that CPUs on newer nodes consume less energy.

that's not entirely true. they consume less energy in run mode, but in deep sleep the leakage currents are higher than with larger nodes. this is relevant for ultra low power applications, but those don't run linux anyway.

Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by SomeoneFromCA on Saturday December 05, 2020 @07:56AM (#25314191)
This must be the reason Ryzens idle at higher power than Intels.
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by formerly_proven on Saturday December 05, 2020 @08:30AM (#25314391)
20 W of IO die power regardless of idling seems the more likely answer.
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by MrBuddyCasino on Saturday December 05, 2020 @08:37AM (#25314451)
No, AMD has always been worse than Intel at idle power consumption. I don’t know the reason for the difference.
Re:The future of 32-bit Linux by sudosysgen on Saturday December 05, 2020 @01:51PM (#25317169)
The reason nowadays is that desktop Zen chips run the I/O die at a worse node, to save money.