From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/6] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: ACCESS_ONCE() provides cache coherence
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:59:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200427225904.GQ7560@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f3cdec26-480e-d2e0-3e54-4b0536831fcd@jonmasters.org>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:36:19PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 2/17/14 4:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > The ACCESS_ONCE() primitive provides cache coherence, but the
> > documentation does not clearly state this. This commit therefore upgrades
> > the documentation.
>
> <snip>
>
> > + In short, ACCESS_ONCE() provides "cache coherence" for accesses from
> > + multiple CPUs to a single variable.
>
> (ACCESS_ONCE is now READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE but the above added the original
> language around cache coherence)
>
> I would argue that we might want to avoid describing it in this manner. The
> hardware provides cache coherency in order to keep a single memory location
> coherent between multiple observers. These kernel macros only tell the
> compiler to perform the load once. They take advantage of the properties of
> coherence in the presence of multiple observers.
You lost me on this one. Are you advocating that this be described
as constraining the compiler from invalidating the cache coherency
(single-variable sequential consistency) provided by modern hardware?
Just for background, my view is that "cache coherence", like "real time",
is a property of the system that can be destroyed by any component.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-27 22:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1392672413-5114-2-git-send-email-paulmck () linux ! vnet ! ibm ! com>
2020-04-24 3:36 ` Jon Masters
2020-04-27 22:59 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-02-17 21:26 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/6] Documentation changes for 3.15 Paul E. McKenney
2014-02-17 21:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/6] documentation: Document call_rcu() safety mechanisms and limitations Paul E. McKenney
2014-02-17 21:26 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/6] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: ACCESS_ONCE() provides cache coherence Paul E. McKenney
2014-02-17 21:40 ` Josh Triplett
2014-02-17 22:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200427225904.GQ7560@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=jcm@jonmasters.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®