@cmuratori The LOCK on x86 prefix is a misnomer, there is no actual locking involved in say a fetch-and-add, not even at HW level.
-
-
Replying to @rygorous
@cmuratori As long as the destination is aligned anyway. An atomic add "locks" no more than an atomic store does.2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@rygorous The LOCK prefix was an actual system bus lock. Later, they made it so that it didn't have to lock if the core had it in cache.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@rygorous But I believe it _still_ took the system lock if it wasn't in the cache after that (P4 and up). Not sure about _now_.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@rygorous But point being, it _was_ a real lock, and I assume that it still is a real lock on _some_ processors out there.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori No, the system bus lock is not something anyone has used for aligned operands ever since x86 cores started implementing MESI.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@cmuratori Not that it matters for the definition of wait-freedom; even if you do have to shut down everyone else on the bus,1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rygorous
@cmuratori that might be a slow operation, but it's still bounded-time and guaranteed progress as long as a single core can't hog the bus.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@rygorous That would be nice to know. Basically there's that, then there's does require, but doesn't halt anything, then there's "other" :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.