Re: Memory ordering

On 11/15/2024 12:53 PM, BGB wrote:

On 11/15/2024 11:27 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:

jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> writes:

Anybody doing that sort of programming, i.e. lock-free or distributed
algorithms, who can't handle weakly consistent memory models, shouldn't
be doing that sort of programming in the first place.

>
Do you have any argument that supports this claim.
>

Strongly consistent memory won't help incompetence.

>
Strong words to hide lack of arguments?
>

 In my case, as I see it:
   The tradeoff is more about implementation cost, performance, etc.
 Weak model:
   Cheaper (and simpler) to implement;
   Performs better when there is no need to synchronize memory;
   Performs worse when there is need to synchronize memory;
   ...

[...]
A TSO from a weak memory model is as it is. It should not necessarily perform "worse" than other systems that have TSO as a default. The weaker models give us flexibility. Any weak memory model should be able to give sequential consistency via using the right membars in the right places.