Re: mutex vs cache coherency protocol

[email protected]
Newsgroups gmane.linux.smp
Message-ID <20070903225623.GE13377@boogeyman>
Exactly -- cache coherency ensures that things are only modified once by a
series of processors, but it doesn't ensure that a given, necessarily atomic
sequence of operations is executed by only a single thread of operation.

I'm not entirely sure a kernel couldn't be built using only cache coherency
to prevent deadlocks.  Something like a delegate system where you queue up
requests through a single operation seems like it would do, but ultimately,
you're just making a complicated mutex at that point.

-Phil/CERisE

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 04:44:56PM -0500, Robert M. Hyatt wrote:
> 
> what about the kernel?  How will it protect itself when multiple 
> processors execute kernel code???
> 
> 
> Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D.          Computer and Information Sciences
> [email protected]                   University of Alabama at Birmingham
> (205) 934-2213                  136A Campbell Hall
> (205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
> 
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Xu Yang wrote:
> 
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > Just got a rough question in my head.
> > 
> > don't know whether anyone interested .
> > 
> > mutex vs cache coherency protocol(for multiprocessor)
> > 
> > both of these two can be used to protect shared resource in the memory.
> > 
> > are both of them necessary?
> > 
> > for example:
> > 
> > in a multiprocessor system, if there is only mutex no cache coherency.
> > obviously this would cause problem.
> > 
> > what about there is no mutex mechanism, only cache coherency protocol
> > in multiprocessor system? after consideration, I found this also could
> > casue problem, when the processors are multithreading processors,
> > which means more than one threads can be running on one processor. in
> > this case if we only have cache coherency and no mutex, this would
> > cause problem. because all the threads running on one processor share
> > one cache, the cache coherency protocol can not be functioning
> > anymore. the shrared resource could be crashed by different threads.
> > 
> > then if all the processors in the multiprocessor system are sigle
> > thread processor, only one thread can be running one one processor. is
> > it ok, if we only have cache coherency protocol ,no mutex mechanism?
> > 
> > anyone has any idea? all the comments are welcome and appreciated,
> > including criticism.
> > 
> > regards,
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-smp" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-smp" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-smp" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.