- There are probably so many stories out there of interesting things she did. A few are breifly referenced at her old website here: https://web.archive.org/web/20060116130917/http://www.csl.co...
- Her babysitter was Mike Bloomfield!? (the astronaut)
- rip. i got a chuckle out of this trivia on her old website:
> Rob Pike didn't really name my favorite editor after me.
- She was a CS PhD and somewhat itinerant professor with a long career who wrote a prominent CS paper about computer memory, Hitting the Memory Wall: Implications of the Obvious
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/216585.216588
on her obituary page, you will see a prominent "Memory Wall" link that is NOT a reference to her paper, but a place for sharing your thoughts about her life
- you wouldn't believe how many people cite that paper as "Wulf et al." when that's practically more characters than saying "Wulf and McKee"
I notice these things a bit more as she was my PhD thesis advisor
- There's only two authors! That's so rude!
- Why? For all the automatic academic score tracking systems it doesn't matter one bit if it is Wulf et al. or Wulf and McKee.
- The automated ones don't care, but it absolutely matters for the informal credit assignment process that actually runs academia.
I really wish we had a better way to "name" papers. Big clinical trials often have an acronym (often hilariously forced: "CXCessoR4"). That takes the emphasis off (one) lead author but it's implausibly hard to make up one for every research paper.
- What "informal credit assignment"? It's automated and it runs entirely on quantitative data.
- the one where i think of a particular piece of work, and i know who did it, then tell a student "oh, see if $author's group published anything else about this."
i'm not using software for this if this is off the top of my head, and it's the sort of thing that, at scale, hurts the forgotten author and their students
- I see. The informal credit assignment process is something that only runs inside of your head.
- its about respect, not about academic score tracking systems
- et al should never be applied when only two authors!!!
- ...unless the second one is named Alfred and is an informal person
- Bruce et al
- > you wouldn't believe how many people cite that paper as "Wulf et al." when that's practically more characters than saying "Wulf and McKee"
35% less isn't usually described as "practically more".Wulf et al. Wulf and McKeeIt'd be interesting to see someone use the unabbreviated form; I have a hunch they wouldn't know to say "et alia".
- How did you arrive at 35% less? The first is 11 characters, the second is 14, and 3/14 is 21%.
- That is a good question. As you say, it's 21%. I had the 11 and the 14 correct; I don't remember how I got 35%.
- Yeah tenure is nice but there's just a hint of mystery behind the title "itinerant professor." Like a wizard that just pops up in places to work computer science magic.
- I was a phd student when sally was a professor at Utah. I get the feeling that a lot of people came together for an interesting project (systems/memory related, I can’t even remember the name ATM) and dispersed when the project was at its later stages. I think it’s common in our field for many phds to work as professors for just a few years and not commit to it as a career.
- bit ironic i guess but unintentionally fitting
- My dissertation was on the memory wall, and I never heard of her :/ RIP
- Could you (or someone else in the know) give us a brief overview of the current state of the memory wall issue?
- High bandwidth memory (HBM) can deliver TB/s of memory bandwidth and has completely shattered the memory wall for individual cores/compute elements. The only way for compute to keep up is going wide and parallel as seen in GPUs.
Despite this, massively increased memory bandwidth does not translate to material performance improvements on non-parallel compute tasks because few tasks are actually memory bandwidth bound, instead being memory latency bound.
The best known general solutions for improving memory latency are per-compute element memory caches. Unfortunately, this increases the complexity and size of your compute elements forcing you to reduce the number of compute elements, but a large number of compute elements is the only way to saturate HBM memory bandwidth.
To keep up the best known techniques are either algorithmically batch which allows you to go wide using vector/batch instructions or you go the GPU route with memory latency-hiding parallelism.
- Well…. The reason there’s such a big mismatch is the memory controller. Something like 80-90% of the energy is spent moving data in and out because of the complex addressing. If you move compute into the RAM and instead shuttle instructions in and out, you might get a huge speed up. The challenge is when an instruction references some data over there - that may end up eliminating all the advantage. But people I believe are trying to commercialize this concept.
- > If you move compute into the RAM and instead shuttle instructions in and out, you might get a huge speed up.
Isn't that just a per-compute cache/local memory? You're proposing a scaled-up variety of NUMA where every compute core has its local memory and going outside that will cost you more.
- Oh my knowledge is woefully out of date. But I believe the memory wall is a fact of life for the most part. Like many others, I nibbled around the edges of the constraint at massive cost in increased complexity. Outside of very specific exceptions the cure tends to be worse than the disease.
- [dead]
- Damn, three years younger than one of my parents. A real shame.
Call your loved ones :(
115 points by deater 21 hours ago | 33 comments