![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Nagendra Singh Tomar wrote: > > > Jamie, > > Just wondered if the store buffer is snooped in some > > architectures. In that case I believe the OS need not do anything for > > serialization (except for aliases, if they do not hit the same cache > line). > > In x86 store buffer is not snooped which leads to all these > serialization > > issues (other CPUs looking at stale value of data which is in the > store > > buffer of some other CPU). > > Pl correct me if I have got anything wrong/ > > To avoid the so called 'load hazard' (that, BTW, triggers read over > writes, that are not allowed in x86) you have two options. Snoop the > write > buffer or flush it upon L1 miss. Otherwise you might end up getting > stale > data from L2. > I meant to ask if the store buffer is snooped by *other CPUs*. To maintain self coherence the local store buffer has to be anyway consulted by local loads to give the latest stored value. Thanx, tomar > > > - Davide > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||