[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Uses for memory barriers
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > Maybe I'm missing something. But if the same CPU loads the value
> > before the store becomes visible to cache coherency, it might see
> > the value out of any order any of the other CPUs sees.
> Agreed. But the CPUs would have to refer to a fine-grained synchronized
> timebase or to some other variable in order to detect the fact that there
> were in fact multiple different values for the same variable at the same
> time (held in the different store queues).

Even that wouldn't be illegal. No one ever said that any particular write
becomes visible to all CPUs at the same time.

> If the CPUs looked only at that one single variable being stored to,
> could they have inconsistent opinions about the order of values that
> this single variable took on? My belief is that they could not.

Yes, I think this must be right. If a store is hung up in a CPU's store
buffer, it will mask later stores by other CPUs (i.e., prevent them from
becoming visible to the CPU that owns the store buffer). Hence all stores
that _do_ become visible will appear in a consistent order.

But my knowledge of outlandish hardware is extremely limited, so don't
take my word as gospel.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-19 22:41    [W:0.069 / U:7.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site