1 HN user recommended this lecture1 month2013–2023score 1
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN points to the Mill talks as an excellent, deep look at an unconventional CPU design, especially in threads on registers and instruction sets.
The second talk in the Mill CPU series by Mill Computing, covering the Belt, the Mill's operand-passing model that replaces general registers. It explains the cost of register renaming in conventional wide CPUs and how the Belt reaches high instruction-level parallelism.
“the Mill was described in an excellent series of talks” (HN, 2023)
This is reminiscent of the Mill CPU which had temporal addressing and called the history a “belt”. the Mill was described in an excellent series of talks: [this video]
Excellent talk series on temporal addressing and the belt.
The Mill CPU [1] that was discussed a while ago is quite close to being the perfect architecture for a Lisp though, so hopefully many of other parts of these ideas will also come back in even more impressive forms. [1] [this video]
The studies would vary over time because CPU design and bottle necks have changed. Early designs were of course limited by transistor count, now we have OoOe and physical registers are limited by muxers and latency (see the presentations by the mill CPU guy [1] Saving registers in functions is mostly irrelevant - you only save what you'd use, so saving more means fewer spills within the function. Saving on context switches (interrupts alone aren't a big deal) was indeed a problem back when AltiVec was designed, thus it has a special register to keep track of which registers need to be saved. In modern designs this is less of a problem, between higher frequencies, multiple cores, and the other effects of a context switch dominating (effective flush of l1 cache and predictors). The interesting bits nowadays are that load/store is expensive power-wise, which was what ARM identified as the major motivation behind having 32 registers (fewer spills in functions) and OoOe designs. [1] [this video]
Presentations on register limits in modern CPU design.
No ordinary registers. Instead you have a FIFO queue( belt ), where every element( register ) is accessible and has a relative address( offset ). [this video]
Explains the belt: FIFO of operands addressed by relative offset.
False. Mill does not do register renaming. ( Or use "lies". I failed to comprehend you second sentence. ) Here is a talk from one of the designers explaining how it is done: [this video]
Designer explains how Mill avoids register renaming.
According to the CTO, 80% of software operations are loops ( [this video] )? I need convincing of that before I watch the rest of the talk. I suspect it would be a fundamental premise for the architecture of the chip. If it's not true, the stats are probably skewed for an unusual benchmark.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
7 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more