Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #1717

About lockfree_mpmc ...

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Hello,

I think i have forgot something with lockfree_mpmc...

Please follow with me...

The Intel x86 memory model, detailed in Intel 64 Architecture Memory 
Ordering White Paper
and the AMD spec, AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual, list a lot of 
memory ordering
guarantees, among them:
Loads are not reordered with other loads.
Stores are not reordered with other stores.
Stores are not reordered with older loads.
In a multiprocessor system, memory ordering obeys causality (memory ordering 
respects transitive visibility).
In a multiprocessor system, stores to the same location have a total order.
In a multiprocessor system, locked instructions have a total order.
Loads and stores are not reordered with locked instructions.

But since on x86 Loads may be reordered with older stores to different 
locations


So please take a look at the following lockfree_mpmc code:

---

function TLockfree_MPMC.push(tm : tNodeQueue):boolean;
var lasttail,newtemp:long;
i,j:integer;
begin

 if getlength >= fsize
  then
      begin
          result:=false;
          exit;
      end;
result:=true;

[1]newTemp:=LockedIncLong(temp);

[2] lastTail:=newTemp-1;
setObject(lastTail,tm);

[3]

repeat

[4] if CAS(tail,lasttail,newtemp)
   then
      begin
       exit;
      end;
sleep(0);
 until false;

end;
---


So the the loads of lasttail and newtemp in [4] line can be reordered
with older stores of lastail and newtemp in [1] [2], so in this case must
i insert an mfence in line [3] to respect the logic of the program?...



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

About lockfree_mpmc ... "aminer" <aminer@videotron.ca> - 2012-06-03 14:58 -0500
  Re: About lockfree_mpmc ... "aminer" <aminer@videotron.ca> - 2012-06-03 15:19 -0500

csiph-web