[concurrency-interest] Enforcing total sync order on modern hardware

Alexander Terekhov TEREKHOV at de.ibm.com
Wed Mar 25 06:02:53 EDT 2015

thats about atomic 'stores' and 'loads'...  not 'write' atomicity... (note
different words)

Marko Topolnik <marko at hazelcast.com> on 25.03.2015 10:49:39

To:	Alexander Terekhov/Germany/IBM at IBMDE
cc:	concurrency-interest <Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
Subject:	Re: [concurrency-interest] Enforcing total sync order on modern

You have confused my complaint as being about the lack of any definition,
whereas I actually complained that there are several competing definitions
used by various sources. The most natural definition, at least for me, is

    When an atomic store is performed on a shared variable, no other thread
    can observe the modification half-complete.

Source: http://preshing.com/20130618/atomic-vs-non-atomic-operations


On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Alexander Terekhov <TEREKHOV at de.ibm.com>
      try google... quick search yielded


      Michael L. Scott - 2013 - ‎Computers
      Here the problem is not bypassing, but a lack of write atomicity—one
      sees the value written by a store and another thread subsequently
      sees the
      value ...

      Marko Topolnik <marko at hazelcast.com>@cs.oswego.edu on 25.03.2015 08

      Sent by:        concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu

      To:     Alexander Terekhov/Germany/IBM at IBMDE
      cc:     concurrency-interest <Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
      Subject:        Re: [concurrency-interest] Enforcing total sync order
      on modern

      On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Alexander Terekhov <
      TEREKHOV at de.ibm.com>
            T1: X = 1;
            T2: if (X) Y = 1;
            T3: A = Y; B = X;

            is about atomicity of absolutely independent write T1: X = 1;
            like in

      IRIW requires all writes to be independent, not just one, and I have
      provided a clear argument why that is important (testing for TSO of
      independent writes). So I can't really make sense of your current

      BTW "write atomicity" just means that all the constituent bits are
      to be written at once. Obviously, you don't have that meaning in
      mind, but
      it is not crystal-clear what exactly you _do_ mean by it.

      Concurrency-interest mailing list
      Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list