Hello and thank you for your response.
> From: "David Howells" Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:54 AM
>
> Suzanne Wood wrote:
>
> > Seems like the subject of "will never happen" is the read from memory for the
> > asmt to X, but does that sentence say that?
>
> "asmt"?
assignment
> I agree that it doesn't make much sense, so how's this instead?
>
> + However, it is guaranteed that a CPU will be self-consistent: it will see its
> + _own_ accesses appear to be correctly ordered, without the need for a memory
> + barrier. For instance with the following code:
> +
> + X = *A;
> + *A = Y;
> + Z = *A;
> +
> + and assuming no intervention by an external influence, it can be taken that:
> +
> + (*) X will end up holding the original value of *A, as
> +
> + (*) the load of X from *A will never happen after the store of Y into *A, and
> + thus
> +
> + (*) X will never be given instead the value that was assigned from Y to *A;
> + and
> +
> + (*) Z will always be given the value in *A that was assigned there from Y, as
> +
> + (*) the load of Z from *A will never happen before the store, and thus
> +
> + (*) Z will never be given instead the value that was in *A initially.
> +
> + (This ignores the fact that the value initially in *A may appear to be the same
> + as the value assigned to *A from Y).
>
> I'm not sure I want to split the points up that way, but it does make them
> clearer. I'm not sure that method of linking them works, since it looks like
> a bunch of incomplete statements.
>
> Really, this should be described mathematically, if at all.
Do you mean to formalize preconditions on the value of Y and contents of A
and consider postconditions after the execution of the three statements of
the example where the value of X is the prior content of A and A contains and
Z equals the value of Y.
> > It seems to require more effort than necessary to understand in regard to
> > all that is presented in this document.
>
> Are you referring to my attempt to define a self-consistent CPU? Or to the
> subject in general?
Sorry to be unclear. I was just asking about the explanation of the
self-consistent CPU example. The other ideas in the document are more
difficult, so thought this part might be simplified.
> If the former, you may be right. I'll look at compressing the whole thing
> down to a single paragraph.
>
> David
Thanks again.
Suzanne
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
