Reduced Instruction Set Computing - Characteristics and Design Philosophy - Hardware Utilization

Hardware Utilization

For any given level of general performance, a RISC chip will typically have far fewer transistors dedicated to the core logic which originally allowed designers to increase the size of the register set and increase internal parallelism.

Other features that are typically found in RISC architectures are:

• Uniform instruction format, using a single word with the opcode in the same bit positions in every instruction, demanding less decoding;
• Identical general purpose registers, allowing any register to be used in any context, simplifying compiler design (although normally there are separate floating point registers);
• Simple addressing modes, with complex addressing performed via sequences of arithmetic and/or load-store operations;
• Few data types in hardware, some CISCs have byte string instructions, or support complex numbers; this is so far unlikely to be found on a RISC.

Exceptions abound, of course, within both CISC and RISC.

RISC designs are also more likely to feature a Harvard memory model, where the instruction stream and the data stream are conceptually separated; this means that modifying the memory where code is held might not have any effect on the instructions executed by the processor (because the CPU has a separate instruction and data cache), at least until a special synchronization instruction is issued. On the upside, this allows both caches to be accessed simultaneously, which can often improve performance.

Many early RISC designs also shared the characteristic of having a branch delay slot. A branch delay slot is an instruction space immediately following a jump or branch. The instruction in this space is executed, whether or not the branch is taken (in other words the effect of the branch is delayed). This instruction keeps the ALU of the CPU busy for the extra time normally needed to perform a branch. Nowadays the branch delay slot is considered an unfortunate side effect of a particular strategy for implementing some RISC designs, and modern RISC designs generally do away with it (such as PowerPC and more recent versions of SPARC and MIPS).

Some aspects attributed to the first RISC-labeled designs around 1975 include the observations that the memory-restricted compilers of the time were often unable to take advantage of features intended to facilitate manual assembly coding, and that complex addressing modes take many cycles to perform due to the required additional memory accesses. It was argued that such functions would be better performed by sequences of simpler instructions if this could yield implementations small enough to leave room for many registers, reducing the number of slow memory accesses. In these simple designs, most instructions are of uniform length and similar structure, arithmetic operations are restricted to CPU registers and only separate load and store instructions access memory. These properties enable a better balancing of pipeline stages than before, making RISC pipelines significantly more efficient and allowing higher clock frequencies.

In the early days of the computer industry, programming was done in assembly language or machine code, which encouraged powerful and easy-to-use instructions. CPU designers therefore tried to make instructions that would do as much work as feasible. With the advent of higher level languages, computer architects also started to create dedicated instructions to directly implement certain central mechanisms of such languages. Another general goal was to provide every possible addressing mode for every instruction, known as orthogonality, to ease compiler implementation. Arithmetic operations could therefore often have results as well as operands directly in memory (in addition to register or immediate).

The attitude at the time was that hardware design was more mature than compiler design so this was in itself also a reason to implement parts of the functionality in hardware or microcode rather than in a memory constrained compiler (or its generated code) alone. After the advent of RISC, this philosophy became retroactively known as complex instruction set computing, or CISC.

CPUs also had relatively few registers, for several reasons:

• More registers also implies more time-consuming saving and restoring of register contents on the machine stack.
• A large number of registers requires a large number of instruction bits as register specifiers, meaning less dense code (see below).
• CPU registers are more expensive than external memory locations; large register sets were cumbersome with limited circuit boards or chip integration.

An important force encouraging complexity was very limited main memories (on the order of kilobytes). It was therefore advantageous for the density of information held in computer programs to be high, leading to features such as highly encoded, variable length instructions, doing data loading as well as calculation (as mentioned above). These issues were of higher priority than the ease of decoding such instructions.

An equally important reason was that main memories were quite slow (a common type was ferrite core memory); by using dense information packing, one could reduce the frequency with which the CPU had to access this slow resource. Modern computers face similar limiting factors: main memories are slow compared to the CPU and the fast cache memories employed to overcome this are limited in size. This may partly explain why highly encoded instruction sets have proven to be as useful as RISC designs in modern computers.

RISC was developed as an alternative to what is now known as CISC. Over the years, other strategies have been implemented as alternatives to RISC and CISC. Some examples are VLIW, MISC, OISC, massive parallel processing, systolic array, reconfigurable computing, and dataflow architecture.

In the mid-1970s, researchers (particularly John Cocke) at IBM (and similar projects elsewhere) demonstrated that the majority of combinations of these orthogonal addressing modes and instructions were not used by most programs generated by compilers available at the time. It proved difficult in many cases to write a compiler with more than limited ability to take advantage of the features provided by conventional CPUs.

It was also discovered that, on microcoded implementations of certain architectures, complex operations tended to be slower than a sequence of simpler operations doing the same thing. This was in part an effect of the fact that many designs were rushed, with little time to optimize or tune every instruction, but only those used most often. One infamous example was the VAX's INDEX instruction.

As mentioned elsewhere, core memory had long since been slower than many CPU designs. The advent of semiconductor memory reduced this difference, but it was still apparent that more registers (and later caches) would allow higher CPU operating frequencies. Additional registers would require sizeable chip or board areas which, at the time (1975), could be made available if the complexity of the CPU logic was reduced.

Yet another impetus of both RISC and other designs came from practical measurements on real-world programs. Andrew Tanenbaum summed up many of these, demonstrating that processors often had oversized immediates. For instance, he showed that 98% of all the constants in a program would fit in 13 bits, yet many CPU designs dedicated 16 or 32 bits to store them. This suggests that, to reduce the number of memory accesses, a fixed length machine could store constants in unused bits of the instruction word itself, so that they would be immediately ready when the CPU needs them (much like immediate addressing in a conventional design). This required small opcodes in order to leave room for a reasonably sized constant in a 32-bit instruction word.

Since many real-world programs spend most of their time executing simple operations, some researchers decided to focus on making those operations as fast as possible. The clock rate of a CPU is limited by the time it takes to execute the slowest sub-operation of any instruction; decreasing that cycle-time often accelerates the execution of other instructions. The focus on "reduced instructions" led to the resulting machine being called a "reduced instruction set computer" (RISC). The goal was to make instructions so simple that they could easily be pipelined, in order to achieve a single clock throughput at high frequencies.

Later, it was noted that one of the most significant characteristics of RISC processors was that external memory was only accessible by a load or store instruction. All other instructions were limited to internal registers. This simplified many aspects of processor design: allowing instructions to be fixed-length, simplifying pipelines, and isolating the logic for dealing with the delay in completing a memory access (cache miss, etc.) to only two instructions. This led to RISC designs being referred to as load/store architectures.

One more issue is that some complex instructions are difficult to restart, e.g. following a page fault. In some cases, restarting from the beginning will work (although wasteful), but in many cases this would give incorrect results. Therefore the machine needs to have some hidden state to remember which parts went through and what remains to be done. With a load/store machine, the program counter is sufficient to describe the state of the machine.