By: Etienne (etienne_lorrain.delete@this.yahoo.fr), August 25, 2022 1:54 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Anon (no.delete@this.spam.com) on August 24, 2022 8:50 am wrote:
> Andrey (andrey.semashev.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 24, 2022 4:10 am wrote:
> > With MUHTM, you already have the fine grained locking path as a fallback, so I don't see
> > how the code became simpler than just the fine grained locking path without MUHTM.
>
> I am talking about an hypotethical implementation that doesn't require a fallback path.
>
Like "load cacheline on local L1 D-cache in exclusive mode and refuse to share that cacheline"?
At some point your request has to be cancelled, else all processing may stop due to a bug or an AB - BA lockup by two cores.
At that point (cancel exclusive request) you want an exception?
I also imagine there would be a limit on the number of cachelines a core refuses to share...
> Andrey (andrey.semashev.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 24, 2022 4:10 am wrote:
> > With MUHTM, you already have the fine grained locking path as a fallback, so I don't see
> > how the code became simpler than just the fine grained locking path without MUHTM.
>
> I am talking about an hypotethical implementation that doesn't require a fallback path.
>
Like "load cacheline on local L1 D-cache in exclusive mode and refuse to share that cacheline"?
At some point your request has to be cancelled, else all processing may stop due to a bug or an AB - BA lockup by two cores.
At that point (cancel exclusive request) you want an exception?
I also imagine there would be a limit on the number of cachelines a core refuses to share...