I don't see how any amount of memory technology can overcome the physical realities of locality. The closer you want the data to be to your processor, the less space you'll have to fit it. So there will always be a hierarchy where a smaller amount of data can have less latency, and there will always be an advantage to cramming as much data as you can at the top of the hierarchy.

▲

adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

while that's true, CPUs already have automatically managed caches. it's not too much of a stretch to imagine a world in which RAM is automatically managed as well and you don't have a distinction between RAM and persistent storage. in a spinning rust world, that never would have been possible, but with modern nvme, it's plausible.

▲

bluGill 3 days ago | parent [-]

Cpus manage it, but ensuring your data structures are friendly to how they manage caches is one of the keys to fast programs - which some of us care about.

▲

adgjlsfhk1 2 days ago | parent [-]

Absolutely! And it certainly is true that for the most performance optimized codes, having manual cache management would be beneficial, but on the CPU side, at least, we've given up that power in favor of a simpler programming model.

	▲	bluGill 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Part of giving up is what is correct changes too fast. Attempts to do this manually often got great results for a year and then made things worse for the next generation of CPU that did things differently. Anyone who needs manual control thus would need to target a specific CPU and be willing to spend hundreds of millions every year to update the next CPU - there is nobody who is willing to spend that much. The few who would be are better served by putting the important thing into a FPGA which is going to be faster yet for similar costs.

▲

inkyoto 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

«Memory technology» as in «a single tech» that blends RAM and disk into just «memory» and obviates the need for the disk as a distinct concept.

One can conjure up RAM, which has become exabytes large and which does not lose data after a system shutdown. Everything is local in such a unified memory model, is promptly available to and directly addressable by the CPU.

Please do note that multi-level CPU caches still do have their places in this scenario.

In fact, this has been successfully done in the AS/400 (or i Series), which I have mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It works well and is highly performant.

	▲	jason_oster 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> «Memory technology» as in «a single tech» that blends RAM and disk into just «memory» and obviates the need for the disk as a distinct concept. That already exists. Swap memory, mmap, disk paging, and so on. Virtual memory is mostly fine for what it is, and it has been used in practice for decades. The problem that comes up is latency. Access time is limited by the speed of light [1]. And for that reason, CPU manufacturers continue to increase the capacities of the faster, closer memories (specifically registers and L1 cache). [1] https://www.ilikebigbits.com/2014_04_21_myth_of_ram_1.html