Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 9/21/24 4:45 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 20:26:13 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 

On 9/21/2024 6:54 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
https://www.marvell.com/products/cxl.html

>
What about a weak coherency where a programmer has to use the correct
membars to get the coherency required for their specific needs? Along
the lines of UltraSPARC in RMO mode?

 In my case, I suffered through enough of these to implement a
memory hierarchy free from the need of any MemBars yet provide
the performance of <mostly> relaxed memory order, except when
certain kinds of addresses are touched {MMI/O, configuration
space, ATOMIC accesses,...} In these cases, the core becomes
{sequentially consistent, or strongly ordered} depending on the
touched address.

If I understand correctly, atomic accesses (Enhances
Synchronization Facility) effective use a complete memory barrier;
software could effectively provide a memory barrier "instruction"
by performing an otherwise pointless atomic/ESF operation.
Are there no cases where an atomic operation is desired but
sequential consistency is not required? Or is this a tradeoff of
frequency/criticality and the expected overhead of the implicit
memory barrier? (Memory barriers may be similar to context
switches, not needing to be as expensive as they are in most
implementations.)

As far as PCIe device to device data routing, this will all be
based no the chosen virtual channel. Same channel=in order,
different channel=who knows.