Unlike barrier() (which I think I understand), mem_fence() does not affect all items in the work group.The OpenCL spec says (section 6.11.10), for mem_fence():
I tried looking for details on this, I even read the standard on mutexes and atomics... but still I couldnt understand the C++11 memory model visibility guarantees.
I know开发者_开发百科 that modern CPUs can execute out of order, However they always retire the results in-order, as described by wikipedia.
From my another question on SO I found out that its possible that following simple method void B() { if (_complete)
First of all, I know that lock{} is synthetic sugar for Monitor class. (oh, syntactic sugar) I was playing with simple multithreading problems and discovered that cannot totally understand how lockng
A coworker and I write software for a variety of platforms running on x86, x64, Itanium, PowerPC, and other 10 year old server CPUs.
Could someo开发者_Python百科ne explain this statement: shared variables x = 0, y = 0 Core 1Core 2 x = 1;y = 1;
Reading Joseph Albahari\'s threading tutorial, the following are mentioned as generators of memory barriers:
In regards to this question, I\'m interested only in x86 and x86-64. For MSVC 2005, the documentation for __faststore开发者_运维知识库fence says: \"Guarantees that every preceding store is globally v
The C++0x draft has a notion of fences which seems very distinct from a CPU/chip level notion of fences, or say what the linux kernel guys expect of fences. The question is whether the draft really im
加载中,请稍侯......