Talk:Cache coherence

Copyright/licensing issue

Text on this page is word for word identical this: http://www.numascale.com/directory-based.html - which of course may be copied from Wikipedia (but no acknowledgement is given). Either way I suspect this page could be rewritten. 81.178.193.87 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This article should not be merged with cache. Cache coherency is a distinct topic. Dennis 20:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Suggest template removed? EdwardHades 11:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the merger with caching failure seems silly. Objections to removal? --Hobit 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger proposal removed.--Hobit 02:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with removal of the "merge". Edans.sandes 18:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on this question, but I think Dennis's statement is flawed, given that the topic of "cache coherency" does not exist outside the topic of caches. -- intgr 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cache coherency should be linked to cache topic, but it must also be linked to multiprocessing as the major application is in this field.-- Pritish

The merger seems silly. People have written whole books on the subject. Just wait for people to enhance and expand the article.

Consistency vs coherency

Whoever wrote this needs to go back and make a couple of changes:

1. Cache consistency != cache coherency

Coherency has to do with what values can be returned from a read, consistency has to do with the propagation of writes and when written values can/will be returned by a read. Read Hennessey and Patteron's book Ch6 to get an overview.

2. It might be nice to give some different examples of different CC protocols. The three major families of protocols are broadcast snoop, directory based, and hybrid (the only hybrid I know of is the IBM X3, see http://www.realworldtech.com/includes/templates/articles.cfm?ArticleID=RWT042405213553&mode=print for a description of the hybrid broadcast, directory protocol.

David Kanter

Does anyone agree that the sentence "Cache coherence is intended to manage such conflicts and maintain consistency between cache and memory" should be changed to "... maintain coherence between cache and memory"? I think this sentence is "incoherent" with the coherence definition. Edans.sandes 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generalization

I think the article should be generalized to apply to any kind of cache, and make a clear distinction when it's speaking about the CPU cache and when not. I have also added the

{{mergefrom}} tag for caching failure, as it is an artifact of cache incoherency. -- intgr 11:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge cache failure into this article. Cache incoherency can lead to cache failure however as the that is but one of the many causes. Cache failure article also gives examples of failures in web browser caching that have nothing to do with coherency as defined today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.225.96 (talk)

Expansion request

This article doesn't talk about strategies like:

Not strictly guaranteeing coherency, for performance or simplicity. For example, a cache might have the policy "you'll get a consistent version from me, but it might not be the latest one".
Checking to see if a resource has changed, before serving the cached copy or refreshing. (Used for web caches, for example.)

-- Beland 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess there is a link to consistency model, but this is not very well explained, and it is a core concept. -- Beland 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a lot of discussion of the specific application of CPU/memory data caching, which assumes this is the only application. It would be good to make the language more inclusive and add examples from different applications. -- Beland 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. At a minimum - memory cache of disk storage (as in SAN file systems). Page should not refer specifically to processors and memory. Lets stay at a general level of:

reader,
writer,
cache (...unshared),
data store (...shared).

--Kubanczyk 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the author has to define snarfing clearly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayendran.ramani (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Dumb question. Since the text of the article consistently uses the spelling "cache coherence", why is the article "Cache coherency"? --Jorend 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And is "coherency" even a word? Blowfish (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd question is stupid, dictionaries exist, see [1]. The problem is that the article uses both words (coherence and coherency are different words, not different spellings, since they also have different pronunciations); but coherence is the most common spelling, also in this technical meaning. Going to fix this. --Blaisorblade (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To explain why I'm doing the rename directly: I'm working on these articles while studying the topic, and coherency (which is a word born after consistency and similar words, I guess) is never used, except in the title of "Effects of cache coherency in multiprocessors" by M. Dubois and F.A. Briggs (note the first author is French). The same authors, in "Memory access buffering in multiprocessors", switch to the other spelling. Also dictionaries consistently suggest coherence. So, I'm switching everything I find. --Blaisorblade (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directory-based cache coherence protocols

How do directory-based cache coherence protocols work? --Abdull (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Coherence protocol

The Coherence protocol article is almost empty, all the existing information fits here in existing subsections, and cache coherence seems to me impossible to discuss without discussing coherence protocols. What do you think? --Blaisorblade (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this suggestion. I would append that coherence protocol be left with a redirect to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.166.49 (talk)

practically used protocols

AMD uses MOESI in opteron, Intel - MESI in pentium & Core. What protocols are used by other vendors? Such information can be added into article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A5b (talk • contribs)

You are encouraged to add such information to the article. :)

Don't forget to add references for verifiability. If you're not sure how to do that, just use <ref>http://your.link.here/...</ref>. -- intgr [talk] 17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol list: multiple items for same protocol

Minor note: shouldn't the "Illinois" and "MESI" items in the protocol list be replaced by one item "MESI (Illinois) protocol"? They refer to the same thing, and it is not clear why have two entries in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeicolin (talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of "Overview" bullet 3

Insertion of "and" is incorrect in "Different processors may see an operand and assume different sequences of values.", although more than one editor (lately @Intgr:) has introduced it. I am surprised this should be contentious as the sentence jarred with me on first reading it. It seemed so simple at the time.

Both forms are grammatically correct (nearly) but they differ in meaning: the subject of the verb "assume" is changed. The version without "and" is correct because:

It is (each copy of) the cached the operand that assumes a different sequence of values, and the several processors that see it. "Assume" is used here in the sense of "adopt" or "take on". The processor is not assuming anything: it is seeing this happen.
There is no "and" in the source cited (Neupane), which is in turn quite likely quoting from Grammatikakis, et. al..

Better than either is "Different processors may each see an operand assume a different sequence of values." The singular is to be preferred because each processor sees one particular sequence.

--Prof Tournesol (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of the Cache Coherence Problem

The article says: "The cache coherence problem exists only in systems with private local caches." I claim this isn't true. Assume a CPU with 4 cores and 2 levels of cache. One L1 cache (L1.0) is shared between CPU0 and CPU1, another one (L1.1) is shared between CPU2 and CPU3. L2 is shared between all 4 cores. Therefore, there aren't any private local caches and according to the statement I'm challenging, there can't be a cache coherence problem. But suppose a thread running on CPU0 reads a variable and a different one running on CPU2 accesses the same one pretty much at the same time. Both L1.0 and L1.1 contain a cache line holding that variable. If now both processes modify the variable, we have a cache coherence problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGucket (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

software / hardware coherence

i find that this article should speak also about software coherency and mention that directory based and snoop protocols are hardware based cache coherency protocols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:660:6302:21:6495:BC40:E65D:45DD (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cache coherence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811023120/http://sc.tamu.edu/systems/eos/nehalem.pdf to http://sc.tamu.edu/systems/eos/nehalem.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preposition Pickiness (from vs to)

I am confused by "In a read made by a processor P to a location X". As a native English speaker it seems that this should read "In a read made by a processor P from a location X".

Is there some technical reason for using "to" for both reads and writes?

Thanks,

-kb

(I'm trying to understand "false sharing" and getting really clear on cache coherency seems a necessary prerequisite. Using a clearer preposition here would help. I'm happy to make the change, but want to make sure I'm not breaking something else I don't appreciate.) Kentborg (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kentborg 109.74.43.253 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence-Free Processor

COI - It is my idea, but it has not been modeled, so no product exists. This is informational only. It has been peer reviewed.

I would like to propose an entry under coherence mechanisms, a coherence-free processor.

Coherence mechanisms

Coherence-Free Cache

It might be possible to create an exclusive cache. This would make possible a coherence-free processor.
FrankYang43338 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were two types of data, then it might be faster to process them in different ways. Just as a car performs better when you match the tires to the weather, a computer can execute faster when the algorithm is optimized for each data type.

See also: WIPO patent and my sandbox. Thank you for assisting.
FrankYang43338 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]