3 ms·
Yes, this is correct and the most overlooked aspect and reason for the misnomer. Atomics imply locking at the cpu. Depending on the CPU the lock happens either
by mrcode007 3y ago
Yes, this is correct and the most overlooked aspect and reason for the misnomer. Atomics imply locking at the cpu. Depending on the CPU the lock happens either for the entire memory bus (pre Intel P6 on x86) or as part of snoop disable bits on relevant cache lines in the snooping protocol
- DannyBee 3y agoIt's not a misnomer, it's just a bad term of art. When it was coined folks were well aware that atomics locked at the CPU level.
- mrcode007 3y ago“In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gpderetta 3y agoThe "locking" happening on the CPU level is very different from the software level locking, as it is guaranteed by the hardware to be bounded (technically bus arbiters are not guaranteed to complete in finite time, but they are astronomically unlikely to do so).