Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<ad8ce8000ff1a5a708d3cca330b5861e@www.novabbs.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Memory ordering Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:33:36 +0000 Organization: Rocksolid Light Message-ID: <ad8ce8000ff1a5a708d3cca330b5861e@www.novabbs.org> References: <vfono1$14l9r$1@dont-email.me> <vh4530$2mar5$1@dont-email.me> <-rKdnTO4LdoWXKj6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <vh5t5b$312cl$2@dont-email.me> <5yqdnU9eL_Y_GKv6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@supernews.com> <2024Nov15.082512@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vh7ak1$3cm56$1@dont-email.me> <20241115152459.00004c86@yahoo.com> <vh8bn7$3j6ql$1@dont-email.me> <vhb2dc$73fe$1@dont-email.me> <vhct2q$lk1b$2@dont-email.me> <2024Nov17.161752@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vhh16e$1lp5h$1@dont-email.me> <2024Dec3.100144@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vin2rp$3ofc$1@dont-email.me> <3aa9f0a3d3dde86193abb1c01e52d03a@www.novabbs.org> <jwvser449xz.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> <vipv2t$v57m$1@dont-email.me> <virlki$1fhli$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3663762"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="o5SwNDfMfYu6Mv4wwLiW6e/jbA93UAdzFodw5PEa6eU"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$RiRM6k5A2sWzqCXhZWrEieWmwKfO.oMwtCLx2RdvG1d0GfLUc8zD6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: cb29269328a20fe5719ed6a1c397e21f651bda71 Bytes: 3882 Lines: 55 On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 7:44:19 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 12/4/2024 8:13 AM, jseigh wrote: >> On 12/3/24 18:37, Stefan Monnier wrote: >>>>> If there are places >>>>> in the code it doesn't know this can't happen it won't optimize >>>>> across it, more or less. >>>> >>>> The problem is HOW to TELL the COMPILER that these memory references >>>> are "more special" than normal--when languages give few mechanisms. >>> >>> We could start with something like >>> >>> critical_region { >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> such that the compiler must refrain from any code motion within >>> those sections but is free to move things outside of those sections as >>> if >>> execution was singlethreaded. >>> >> >> C/C++11 already defines what lock acquire/release semantics are. >> Roughly you can move stuff outside of a critical section into it >> but not vice versa. >> >> Java uses synchronized blocks to denote the critical section. >> C++ (the society for using RAII for everything) has scoped_lock >> if you want to use RAII for your critical section. It's not >> always obvious what the actual critical section is. I usually >> use it inside its own bracket section to make it more obvious. >> { std::scoped_lock m(mutex); >> // .. critical section >> } >> >> I'm not a big fan of c/c++ using acquire and release memory order >> directives on everything since apart from a few situations it's >> not intuitively obvious what they do in all cases. You can >> look a compiler assembler output but you have to be real careful >> generalizing from what you see. > > The release on the unlock can allow some following stores and things to > sort of "bubble up before it? > > Acquire and release confines things to the "critical section", the > release can allow for some following things to go above it, so to speak. > This is making me think of Alex over on c.p.t. ! This sounds dangerous if the thing allowed to go above it is unCacheable while the lock:release is cacheable, the cacheable lock can arrive at another core before the unCacheable store arrives at its destination. > :^) > > Did I miss anything? Sorry Joe.