Don't sit on the fence: A static analysis approach to automatic fence insertion — mentioned by conistonwater

Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:00:20 GMT

Hi, thanks for replying. > The paper reports overhead numbers from existing research. For instance, see Figure 18 in http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1411, which shows the cost of SC for memcached - 1% on x86 and 3% on ARM. But that's the bit I don't find nearly convincing enough. You say (p.5) that you're going to "rebut these arguments" that "SC is too expensive", but the main figure of 1%/3% is from a non-standard research-level static analysis tool that, if I read that paper correctly, works on codes up to 10k LOC and takes a few minutes to run, producing the 1%/3% figure. Can that really be…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Don't sit on the fence: A static analysis approach to automatic fence insertion — mentioned by madanMus

Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:21:03 GMT

[I am one of the authors of the paper.] The paper reports overhead numbers from existing research. For instance, see Figure 18 in http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1411, which shows the cost of SC for memcached - 1% on x86 and 3% on ARM. This overhead is primarily due to the cost of fences on existing hardware. What we (not so cheekily) say is this is likely to get better as hardware platforms provide better implementations for fences.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Don't sit on the fence: A static analysis approach to automatic fence insertion · HackerPapers discussions

Don't sit on the fence: A static analysis approach to automatic fence insertion — mentioned by conistonwater

Don't sit on the fence: A static analysis approach to automatic fence insertion — mentioned by madanMus