[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Java volatile vs. C11 seq_cst (was Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] a

From: Torvald Riegel
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Java volatile vs. C11 seq_cst (was Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] add a header file for atomic operations)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:11:36 +0200

On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 18:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 05:37:42PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 07:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > First, I am not a fan of SC, mostly because there don't seem to be many
> > > (any?) production-quality algorithms that need SC.  But if you really
> > > want to take a parallel-programming trip back to the 1980s, let's go!  ;-)
> > 
> > Dekker-style mutual exclusion is useful for things like read-mostly
> > multiple-reader single-writer locks, or similar "asymmetric" cases of
> > synchronization.  SC fences are needed for this.
> They definitely need Power hwsync rather than lwsync, but they need
> fewer fences than would be emitted by slavishly following either of the
> SC recipes for Power.  (Another example needing store-to-load ordering
> is hazard pointers.)

The C++11 seq-cst fence expands to hwsync; combined with a relaxed
store / load, that should be minimal.  Or are you saying that on Power,
there is a weaker HW barrier available that still constrains store-load
reordering sufficiently?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]