linearizability gets you? I have not seen anything promising in this
direction. Whoever makes this breakthrough will surely reap the
world's recognition and respect.
/Roman
----
*??:* DT
*??????????:* 26 ?? 2014 ?. 20:24
*:* Roman Elizarov; dhol...@
ncy-interest-boun...@cs.oswego.edu
[mailto:concurrency-interest-boun...@cs.oswego.edu]*On Behalf Of
*Oleksandr Otenko
*Sent:* Wednesday, 10 December 2014 8:21 AM
*Cc:* concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev
*Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP1
ilto:concurrency-interest-boun...@cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Oleksandr
Otenko
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2014 8:21 AM
Cc: concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev
Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
In that case I
...@cs.oswego.edu
Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
I see it differently. The issue is ordering - the inability of non-TSO
platforms enforce total order of independent stores. The first loads are
also independent and their ordering can
tenko [mailto:oleksandr.ote...@oracle.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, 10 December 2014 7:54 AM
*To:* dhol...@ieee.org; Hans Boehm
*Cc:* core-libs-dev; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
*Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
Yes,
*Sent:* Wednesday, 10 December 2014 6:34 AM
*To:* dhol...@ieee.org; Hans Boehm
*Cc:* core-libs-dev; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
*Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
Is the thorn the many allowe
: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
Yes, I do understand the reader needs barriers, too. I guess I was
wondering more why the reader would need something stronger than what
dependencies etc could enforce. I guess I'll read what Martin forw
Behalf Of
*Oleksandr Otenko
*Sent:* Wednesday, 10 December 2014 6:04 AM
*To:* Hans Boehm; dhol...@ieee.org
*Cc:* core-libs-dev; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
*Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
On
o.edu]On Behalf Of Oleksandr
Otenko
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2014 6:04 AM
To: Hans Boehm; dhol...@ieee.org
Cc: core-libs-dev; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
On 26/11/2014
ego.edu]On Behalf Of Oleksandr
Otenko
Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2014 6:34 AM
To: dhol...@ieee.org; Hans Boehm
Cc: core-libs-dev; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
Is the thorn the ma
*Sent:* Wednesday, 26 November 2014 12:04 PM
*To:* dhol...@ieee.org
*Cc:* Stephan Diestelhorst; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu;
core-libs-dev
*Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
To be concrete here, on
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Oleksandr Otenko
wrote:
> On 26/11/2014 02:04, Hans Boehm wrote:
>>
>> To be concrete here, on Power, loads can normally be ordered by an address
>> dependency or light-weight fence (lwsync). However, neither is enough to
>> prevent the questionable outcome for IR
On 26/11/2014 02:04, Hans Boehm wrote:
To be concrete here, on Power, loads can normally be ordered by an
address dependency or light-weight fence (lwsync). However, neither
is enough to prevent the questionable outcome for IRIW, since it
doesn't ensure that the stores in T1 and T2 will be mad
.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev
*Subject:* RE: [concurrency-interest] RFR:
8065804:JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
Can you expand on that please. All previous discussion of IRIW I have
seen indicated that the property, while a consequence of existing JMM
rules, had no practical use.
T
:* dhol...@ieee.org
> *Cc:* Stephan Diestelhorst; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu;
> core-libs-dev
> *Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
> JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
>
> To be concrete here, on Power, loads can normally be ordered b
To be concrete here, on Power, loads can normally be ordered by an address
dependency or light-weight fence (lwsync). However, neither is enough to
prevent the questionable outcome for IRIW, since it doesn't ensure that the
stores in T1 and T2 will be made visible to other threads in a consistent
November 2014 6:49 PM
To: dhol...@ieee.org; Hans Boehm
Cc: concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev
Subject: RE: [concurrency-interest] RFR:
8065804:JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
There is no conceivable way to kill IRIW consistency requirement while
retaining
jkhbo...@gmail.com [mailto:hjkhbo...@gmail.com]On Behalf Of Hans Boehm
Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2014 12:04 PM
To: dhol...@ieee.org
Cc: Stephan Diestelhorst; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev
Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for
Stephan Diestelhorst writes:
>
> David Holmes wrote:
> > Stephan Diestelhorst writes:
> > > Am Dienstag, 25. November 2014, 11:15:36 schrieb Hans Boehm:
> > > > I'm no hardware architect, but fundamentally it seems to me that
> > > >
> > > > load x
> > > > acquire_fence
> > > >
> > > > imposes a mu
19 matches
Mail list logo
