Subject: Re: PostgreSQL
To: Vincent <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 02/03/2006 09:20:04
> Johnny Billquist a écrit :
>> Yes, I took a rather restricted view.
>> I was talking (and thinking) about the bus transactions, not machine
>> language (or some even higher language constructs).
> There are been some good answers over "what is" a write. Just to add one
> thing that have been overlooked: cache. Normal writes goes on the cache,
> nowdays. 68020/68030 had a write-through cache, but most of the modern
> processors operate in write-back mode. That means that a write can be
> much of complex thing, invalidating lines in many other peers (snoop
True. And also, with a writeback cache, it ususally perform aligned full
word writes for you, once it decides to write the data back.
> However, a r/m/w locked instruction should always be performed in
> write-through mode, in order to avoid the overhead of changing other's
> cache status. Semaphores should not be cached.
Um no. :-)
You have to invalidate other CPUs caches when doing a write. Even on a
r/m/w which is interlocked. Semaphores definitely should not be cached,
but the cache system don't know we're talking about a semaphore. It's
all just memory. So unless you can guarantee that other CPUs don't cache
the memory location at all, you'll need to change other CPUs cache.
(Well, actually, I know of atleast one CPU which have a specific
instruction which always bypass the cache totally, which is used for
mutex locks, so on that machine the cache can be left alone. But I think
that's an exception.)
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol