Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Cost of handling misaligned access
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:23:00 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <20250203162300.000071b5@yahoo.com>
References: <5lNnP.1313925$2xE6.991023@fx18.iad>
	<b50b6b125cc92f7711d420a746941f7e@www.novabbs.org>
	<vnosfu$t4ra$1@dont-email.me>
	<c0f6c70ca9c72202cce3721df1d81155@www.novabbs.org>
	<_P3oP.186045$nlJ1.91710@fx41.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 15:23:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="caaca24cc78004b50fa3ea4512ace58a";
	logging-data="1376427"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AZmsEdMl57gD78O1Aeyzm75X9Dm8/M7w="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VlECnlMzT0N/H/T4ghg3/ukyL60=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2541

On Mon, 03 Feb 2025 13:49:46 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
> >On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 22:44:13 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2/2/2025 10:51 AM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:  
> >>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 16:45:19 +0000, EricP wrote:  
> >-------------  
> >>>> I don't think there are line straddle consequences for coherence
> >>>> because there is no ordering guarantees for misaligned accesses.
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> Generally stated as:: Misaligned accesses cannot be considered
> >>> ATOMIC.  
> >>
> >> Try it on an x86/x64. Straddle a l2 cache line and use it with a
> >> LOCK'ed RMW. It should assert the BUS lock.  
> >
> >Consider this approach when you have a cabinet of slid in servers,
> >each server having 128 cores, the cabinet being cache coherent,
> >and the cabinet having 4096 cores.
> >
> >Can you say "it donna scale" ??  
> 
> We (3Leaf Systems) learned that the hard way 20 years ago.   AMD and
> Intel processors will sometimes assert the BUS lock under high
> contention for a target cache line, even in cases where the access is
> aligned and doesn't straddle a page boundary.
> 

According to my understanding, last Intel or AMD processor that had
physical bus lock signal was released in Sep 2008. Likely not many
still left operating and even fewer used in production.