[Kranar]

The concept of sequential consistency only exists within the context of a programming language's memory model. It makes no sense to speak about the performance of sequentially consistent operations without respect to the semantics of a programming language.

[ibraheemdev]

Yes, what I meant was that the same instruction is generated by the compiler, regardless if the RMW operation is performed with relaxed or sequentially consistent ordering, because that instruction is strong enough in terms of hardware semantics to enforce C++'s definition of sequential consistency.

There is a pretty clear mapping in terms of C++ atomic operations to hardware instructions, and while the C++ memory model is not defined in terms of instruction reordering, that mapping is still useful to talk about performance. Sequential consistency is also a pretty broadly accepted concept outside of the C++ memory model, I think you're being a little too nitpicky on terminology.

[Kranar]

The presentation you are making is both incorrect and highly misleading.

There are algorithms whose correctness depends on sequential consistency which can not be implemented in x86 without explicit barriers, for example Dekker's algorithm.

What x86 does provide is TSO semantics, not sequential consistency.

[ibraheemdev]

I did not claim that x86 provides sequential consistency in general, I made that claim only for RMW operations. Sequentially consistent stores are typically lowered to an XCHG instruction on x86 without an explicit barrier.

From the Intel SDM:

> Synchronization mechanisms in multiple-processor systems may depend upon a strong memory-ordering model. Here, a program can use a locking instruction such as the XCHG instruction or the LOCK prefix to ensure that a read-modify-write operation on memory is carried out atomically. Locking operations typically operate like I/O operations in that they wait for all previous instructions to complete and for all buffered writes to drain to memory (see Section 8.1.2, “Bus Locking”).