On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 19:37:31 +0200, Rob Van Der Heij ([email protected]) wrote about "Re: Question about CPUs" (in <CAJCc=kjODGW3hgNtwpZS49AfdGgCFaz3CR0q48==h=g2ryg...@mail.gmail.com>):
>> The term you are groping for here is "memory interlock". This was coined >> by IBM in regard to the TS instruction in that it imposes a lock on its >> target byte to prevent any other processor in the SMP configuration from >> manipulating that byte until its operation is complete. > > I believe the thread has been ignoring the earlier reference to "block > concurrent" that the Principles of Operation uses to explain the issue. The term "memory interlock" is much older than the concept of block concurrency -- by some decades. The memory management units of newer CPUs implement integrity in more modern ways. You should bear in mind that memory interlocks were just that: they applied directly to CSTOR, as the older processors were not usually cached. > To redefine the concept of interrupts does not make it more clear in my > opinion. I did not see any redefinition of interrupt in this thread. The semantical shift in my message was about atomicity. I expanded it to include concurrency as well as interruption. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* [email protected] (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
