Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #4951 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ramine <ramine@1.1> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-11-24 16:09 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-11-24 16:09 -0800 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming
About sequential consistency Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-11-24 16:09 -0800
| From | Ramine <ramine@1.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-11-24 16:09 -0800 |
| Subject | About sequential consistency |
| Message-ID | <m506ob$6h3$1@dont-email.me> |
Hello, I think i have understood correctly RMO (Relaxed Memory Ordering) of Sparc RMO and ARM and i have understood correctly TSO (Total Store Ordering) of x86.. but i have a question please... If you have noticed on my previous post about a Seqlock that was wrote in Java, you will notice that it is using sfences and lfences to avoid problems with sequential consistency on RMO (Relaxed Memory Ordering) and TSO (Total Store Ordering), but i feel sincerely that RMO (Relaxed Memory Ordering) is really dangerous, cause for example what will happen to this Seqlock if the call to Spinlock.lock() inside this Seqlock didn't contain an MFENCE !? this will become a serious bug and this will become dangerous and fatal.. so this is why i am kind of afraid of RMO (Relaxed Memory Ordering) cause RMO higher the complexity and this can introduce easily serious and fatal bugs... So my question is: Why have we choose RMO even though that it is dangerous ? Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming
csiph-web