By: bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan), November 21, 2012 11:25 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Paul A. Clayton (paaronclayton.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 21, 2012 9:39 am wrote:
> bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan) on November 21, 2012 6:52 am wrote:
> [snip]
> > This way you don't need to add superfluous reads to protect
> > objects which span multiple cachelines, which is as annoying
> > as multiple unrelated objects in one cacheline.
>
> When would one need to guard a value that is not accessed as part of the critical
> section? Is such an artifact of certain languages (e.g., providing object-granular
> locks) or are there cases where such provides a useful guard?
Good question, I just assumed it is, but
yeah, you are right, it's probably something
which happens rarely and not a good idea.
Even as guard, it would just make other
transactions fail more often...
> bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan) on November 21, 2012 6:52 am wrote:
> [snip]
> > This way you don't need to add superfluous reads to protect
> > objects which span multiple cachelines, which is as annoying
> > as multiple unrelated objects in one cacheline.
>
> When would one need to guard a value that is not accessed as part of the critical
> section? Is such an artifact of certain languages (e.g., providing object-granular
> locks) or are there cases where such provides a useful guard?
Good question, I just assumed it is, but
yeah, you are right, it's probably something
which happens rarely and not a good idea.
Even as guard, it would just make other
transactions fail more often...
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | David Kanter | 2012/08/21 09:17 PM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | Håkan Winbom | 2012/08/21 11:52 PM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | David Kanter | 2012/08/22 01:06 AM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | anon | 2012/08/22 08:46 AM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | Linus Torvalds | 2012/08/22 09:16 AM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | Doug S | 2012/08/24 08:34 AM |
AMD's ASF even more limited | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/22 09:20 AM |
AMD's ASF even more limited | Linus Torvalds | 2012/08/22 09:41 AM |
Compiler use of ll/sc? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/28 09:28 AM |
Compiler use of ll/sc? | Linus Torvalds | 2012/09/08 12:58 PM |
Lock recognition? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/09/10 01:17 PM |
Sorry, I was confused | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/09/13 10:56 AM |
Filter to detect store conflicts | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/22 09:19 AM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | bakaneko | 2012/08/22 02:02 PM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | David Kanter | 2012/08/22 02:45 PM |
Article: Haswell TM Alternatives | bakaneko | 2012/08/22 09:56 PM |
Cache line granularity? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/28 09:28 AM |
Cache line granularity? | David Kanter | 2012/08/31 08:13 AM |
A looser definition might have advantages | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/09/01 06:29 AM |
Cache line granularity? | rwessel | 2012/08/31 07:54 PM |
Alpha load locked granularity | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/09/01 06:29 AM |
Alpha load locked granularity | anon | 2012/09/02 05:23 PM |
Alpha pages groups | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/09/03 04:16 AM |
An alternative implementation | Maynard Handley | 2012/11/20 09:52 PM |
An alternative implementation | bakaneko | 2012/11/21 05:52 AM |
Guarding unread values? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/11/21 08:39 AM |
Guarding unread values? | bakaneko | 2012/11/21 11:25 AM |
TM granularity and versioning | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/11/21 08:27 AM |
TM granularity and versioning | Maynard Handley | 2012/11/21 10:52 AM |
Indeed, TM (and coherence) has devilish details (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/11/21 10:56 AM |