2 ms·

I didn't write the slides myself, but I think the implication is that the TLB is not consulted at all and the physical address is resolved again for every memo

I didn't write the slides myself, but I think the implication is that the TLB is not consulted at all and the physical address is resolved again for every memory access. Of course, this is compiler / architecture / OS dependent though, so YMMV. The point is mostly to convey "lots of stuff you probably didn't consider is going on in the background and may have a nontrivial impact on parallelism."

chrisseaton 7y ago
> I think the implication is that the TLB is not consulted at all This is not true.
- flafla2 7y ago
  Could you clarify? I am merely a student of that class and we didn't discuss TLBs in detail so I'm all ears for details.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    On an architecture with virtual protected memory (the one being described in the slides) there is no compiler control over the TLB. There is no mechanism for the compiler to bypass it. It isn't the semantics in theory or in practice for volatile to bypass almost anything on that list you have for the non-volatile case. It just isn't true. There must be some misunderstanding somewhere that is only clarified viva voce. If you are still in the class I'd love to hear a clarification - maybe I'm wrong!
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]