Sujet : Re: arm ldxr/stxr vs cas
De : already5chosen (at) *nospam* yahoo.com (Michael S)
Groupes : comp.archDate : 09. Sep 2024, 18:49:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <20240909204946.0000411f@yahoo.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
On Mon, 09 Sep 2024 15:42:45 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 18:32:42 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 16:10:41 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
On AMD processors (and likely intel), if a core cannot acquire
a cache line in a a finite time, the core will assert the bus
lock to ensure forward progress.
Nothing to do with the operating software; purely a hardware
thing.
>
>
I think, on AMD processors made in this century the only cases
that resort to physical bus lock are
A) atomic accesses that cross cache boundary
B) atomic accesses that address non-cached memory regions
C) A core cannot acquire a cache line in a finite time. We
encountered this in 2010 on AMD Opteron processors with
our HyperTransport connected CXL-like chip (designed in 2005);
r/t latency could be as high as 800ns to remote memory.
>
PathScale Infinipath, I suppose.
Actully, no.
Horus?