Re:This Is Why They Call It a Weakly-Ordered CPU
by callan on Friday October 19, 2012 @01:03PM
(#4674386)
I work for Intel. This is not correct. A lot depends on your cache type. The two basic ones are uncacheable and write-back.
What you wrote is true for UC. For WB, reads can happen in any order (especially due to cache pre-fetchers). Writes always happen in program order, unless you are in other cache types such as write-combining. WC is mainly used for graphics memory-mapped pixmaps, where the order doesn't matter.
But don't let this scare you too much. From the viewpoint of a single CPU, everything is in order. It's only when you look at it from the memory bus point-of-view that things get confusing.
Unless we are dealing with a memory-mapped IO device that has read side-effects, in which case you need to carefully choose a cache type.
Re:This Is Why They Call It a Weakly-Ordered CPU
by Dylan16807 on Friday October 19, 2012 @02:39PM
(#4674871)
Well yes as far as WB I meant from the view of the program. Modern CPUs do all kinds of terrifying rewriting and speculation internally.
Re:This Is Why They Call It a Weakly-Ordered CPU
by dspeyer on Friday October 19, 2012 @10:27PM
(#4676176)
How do I control my cache type?
Re:This Is Why They Call It a Weakly-Ordered CPU
by yuhong on Saturday October 20, 2012 @01:38AM
(#4676434)
I don't think you can from a user mode program. If you are dealing with normal memory, it will be typically WB, and that is the only thing most user-mode programs will encounter.
Re:This Is Why They Call It a Weakly-Ordered CPU
by dchichkov on Saturday October 20, 2012 @04:58AM
(#4676672)
__builtin_prefetch
Re:This Is Why They Call It a Weakly-Ordered CPU
by ComputerGuru on Friday October 19, 2012 @12:44PM
(#4674278)
Yeah, it's that last one: "can" but usually won't.
Reads always happen in the original order.
Writes always happen in the original order.
Reads can be moved in front of writes.