Re: is Vax addressing sane today

Liste des GroupesRevenir à col advocacy 
Sujet : Re: is Vax addressing sane today
De : chris.m.thomasson.1 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Groupes : comp.arch
Date : 05. Oct 2024, 22:56:34
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vdscmj$tbdp$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/4/2024 3:54 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 19:36:41 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 
On 10/3/2024 11:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/3/2024 9:23 PM, George Neuner wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 00:48:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 06:57:54 GMT, Anton Ertl wrote:
>
If the RISC companies failed to keep up, they only have themselves to
blame.
>
That’s all past history, anyway. RISC very much rules today, and it
is x86
that is struggling to keep up.
>
You are, of course, aware that the complex "x86" instruction set is an
illusion and that the hardware essentially has been a load-store RISC
with a complex decoder on the front end since the Pentium Pro landed
in 1995.
>
Yeah. Wrt memory barriers, one is allowed to release a spinlock on "x86"
with a simple store.
>
The fact that one can release a spinlock using a simple store means that
its basically load-acquire release-store.
>
So a load will do a load then have an implied acquire barrier.
>
A store will do an implied release barrier then perform the store.
 How does the store know it needs to do this when the locking
instruction is more than a pipeline depth away from the
store release ?? So, Locked LD (or something) happens at
1,000,000 cycles, and the corresponding store happens at
10,000,000 cycles (9,000,000 locked).
 
This release behavior is okay for releasing a spinlock with a simple
store, MOV.
 It may be OK to SW but it causes all kinds of grief to HW.
I thought that x86 has an implied #LoadStore | #StoreStore before the store, basically to give it release semantics. This means that one can release a spinlock without using any explicit membars. Iirc, there are Intel manuals that show this for spinlocks. Cannot exactly remember right now.
On x86 an atomic load has acquire and atomic stores have release semantics. Well, I think that is for WB memory only. Humm... Cannot remember if its for WC or WB memory right now. Then there are the L/S/MFENCE instructions...
https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/sfence

Date Sujet#  Auteur
16 Apr 25 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal