By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), October 14, 2021 11:18 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
rwessel (rwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com) on October 14, 2021 9:01 am wrote:
> none (none.delete@this.none.com) on October 13, 2021 6:06 am wrote:
> > Documentation is available: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0602/2021-09/Base-Instructions
> >
> > Instructions for memory copy are named CPY* and those for memory set are SET*.
>
>
> One of the concerns raised in earlier discussions was moving a running copy to a different core (possibly to
> a different machine in a cluster, or such). It appears this punts the problem of underlying different native
> move sizes to the OS fixing up an exception if the parameters end up incorrectly aligned on the new core.
No need to make it as overly complicated as that when this is easily addressed by either using the strictest alignment on both cores (i.e. align at what is best for the big core even if that's stricter than the little core needs) or by never moving an in progress copy to a core using different alignment.
> none (none.delete@this.none.com) on October 13, 2021 6:06 am wrote:
> > Documentation is available: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0602/2021-09/Base-Instructions
> >
> > Instructions for memory copy are named CPY* and those for memory set are SET*.
>
>
> One of the concerns raised in earlier discussions was moving a running copy to a different core (possibly to
> a different machine in a cluster, or such). It appears this punts the problem of underlying different native
> move sizes to the OS fixing up an exception if the parameters end up incorrectly aligned on the new core.
No need to make it as overly complicated as that when this is easily addressed by either using the strictest alignment on both cores (i.e. align at what is best for the big core even if that's stricter than the little core needs) or by never moving an in progress copy to a core using different alignment.