Synchronizing Silicon: Cache Coherency Unveiled

The Invisible Hand: Ensuring Data Consistency Across CPU Cores

In the relentless pursuit of faster, more efficient software, developers often grapple with the complexities of multi-threaded programming. We write concurrent code, striving to utilize the immense power of modern multi-core processors, only to sometimes encounter baffling performance bottlenecks or insidious data inconsistencies. The culprit? Often, it’s not our algorithm, but the invisible dance of data between CPU cores and their caches: CPU cache coherency protocols.

Photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash

At its core, CPU cache coherency ensures that when multiple CPU cores have copies of the same data in their local caches, any write to that data by one core is correctly propagated and observed by all other cores. This isn’t just an academic detail; it’s the bedrock upon which reliable multi-threaded applications are built. Without it, your carefully crafted concurrent logic crumbles, leading to stale data reads, race conditions, and corrupted application states. For any developer aiming to build high-performance, scalable, and robust concurrent systems, a deep understanding of cache coherency isn’t optional—it’s essential for diagnosing subtle performance issues and writing truly optimized code. This article will demystify these protocols, arming you with the knowledge to wield the full power of modern hardware.

Decoding the Dance of Data: Your First Steps into Cache Coherency

Embarking on the journey to understand CPU cache coherency might seem daunting, as it delves deep into computer architecture. However, framing it as a crucial aspect of performance optimization makes it immediately practical. The initial steps involve building a mental model of how data moves and lives within a multi-core system.

First, understand the fundamental problem: CPUs are blazing fast, but main memory (RAM) is comparatively slow. To bridge this “memory wall,” CPUs employ multiple layers of high-speed cache (L1, L2, L3) that store frequently accessed data close to the processing units. When a core needs data, it first checks its L1 cache, then L2, then L3, and finally main memory. This hierarchy is incredibly effective for single-threaded performance.

The complexity arises in a multi-core system where each core has its own L1 and L2 caches, and often shares an L3 cache. When multiple cores try to read or write to the same memory location, you can end up with multiple, potentially different, copies of the data spread across various caches. This is where coherency protocols step in.

Step 1: Grasping the Cache Line.The smallest unit of data transferred between main memory and cache, or between caches, is a “cache line.” Typically 64 bytes on most modern architectures, a cache line is critical. When one byte within a cache line is requested, the entire 64-byte block is fetched. Any write to even a single byte within a cache line invalidates or updates the entire line across other caches.

Step 2: Understanding the Coherency States (MESI Protocol).The most widely adopted protocol is MESI (Modified, Exclusive, Shared, Invalid). Each cache line in a core’s cache is tagged with one of these states:

• Modified (M): The cache line contains data that has been modified by this core, and this modified data is not yet present in main memory. This core is the only owner of this data.
• Exclusive (E): The cache line contains data identical to main memory, and this core is currently the only core holding this data in its cache.
• Shared (S):The cache line contains data identical to main memory, and this data might also be present in other cores’ caches.
• Invalid (I):The cache line does not contain valid data.

When a core wants to read or write data, it checks the state of the relevant cache line. If it’s Invalid, it fetches the data. If it’s Shared and the core wants to write, it must first invalidate all other copies of that cache line in other cores (transition to Modified). If it’s Exclusive and the core wants to write, it simply transitions to Modified. If another core tries to read a Modified line, the modifying core must write its data back to L3 or main memory before relinquishing its ownership or transitioning to Shared.

Step 3: Seeing Coherency in Action (or Misaction). While you don’t directly “configure” cache coherency protocols (the hardware handles that), you experience their effects. A simple way to start observing this is by writing basic multi-threaded code that accesses shared data. Consider a scenario where two threads increment a counter. Without proper synchronization, you’ll see race conditions. Even with basic synchronization (like a mutex), if your data structures are not cache-aligned, you might encounter performance issues due to false sharing.

To begin, experiment with basic C/C++ examples:

1. Shared Counter:Multiple threads incrementing a global int or long. Observe how std::atomic prevents data corruption, and how a mutex works.
2. False Sharing Demonstration: Create a struct with several small long variables. Have different threads modify different variables within the same struct. If these variables fall within the same cache line, performance will degrade significantly as cores continuously invalidate each other’s cache lines.

#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
#include <chrono> // Option 1: Introduce padding to prevent false sharing
struct AlignedCounter { long value; char padding[64 - sizeof(long)]; // Pad to a cache line size (e.g., 64 bytes)
}; // Option 2: Without padding (potential for false sharing)
// struct UnalignedCounter {
// long value;
// }; void increment_loop(AlignedCounter counter, int iterations) { for (int i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) { counter->value++; }
} int main() { const int num_threads = 4; const int iterations_per_thread = 10000000; // Allocate an array of aligned counters, one for each thread std::vector<AlignedCounter> counters(num_threads); // If using UnalignedCounter, just replace AlignedCounter with UnalignedCounter // std::vector<UnalignedCounter> counters(num_threads); std::vector<std::thread> threads; threads.reserve(num_threads); auto start_time = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) { // Pass a pointer to a different counter for each thread threads.emplace_back(increment_loop, &counters[i], iterations_per_thread); } for (auto& t : threads) { t.join(); } auto end_time = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); std::chrono::duration<double, std::milli> duration = end_time - start_time; std::cout << "Total time: " << duration.count() << " ms" << std::endl; for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) { std::cout << "Counter " << i << ": " << counters[i].value << std::endl; } return 0;
}

Experiment: Run this code first with AlignedCounter and then comment it out and use UnalignedCounter (if you modify the increment_loop to take an array of long directly, and pass &values[i]). If you have a true UnalignedCounter struct with long value1; long value2; and two threads operate on value1 and value2 respectively, but they are on the same cache line, you’ll observe significant slowdown. The padded version demonstrates how to avoid false sharing.

This initial exploration provides a tangible link between abstract hardware protocols and practical code performance.

The Developer’s Arsenal: Tools for Taming Cache Behavior

Understanding cache coherency is one thing; identifying its impact and mitigating issues in real-world applications requires specialized tools and a deeper understanding of language features. Developers have several powerful instruments at their disposal:

1. Performance Profilers:These are your primary diagnostic tools for spotting cache-related bottlenecks.

• Linux perf:A command-line utility for Linux systems, perf can collect detailed hardware events, including L1/L2/L3 cache misses, cache line invalidations, and TLB misses. Learning to use perf stat and perf record with event counters like cache-misses, cache-references, L1-dcache-loads, L1-dcache-load-misses is invaluable.
  • Usage Example: perf stat -e cache-misses,cache-references ./your_program
• Intel VTune Amplifier:A commercial suite offering deep insights into CPU performance, including comprehensive cache analysis, identifying false sharing, and memory access patterns. It provides a graphical interface that maps performance events directly to source code.
  • Usage Example: Run your application within VTune and analyze the “Hotspots” and “Memory Access” viewpoints.
• Visual Studio Profiler (Windows):Integrated into Visual Studio, it can analyze CPU usage, memory allocation, and concurrency issues, providing clues about cache contention.

2. Compiler Intrinsics and Language Features:Modern C++ (and other languages like Java and Go) provide mechanisms to hint at or enforce memory ordering, which indirectly deals with cache coherency.

• std::atomic (C++11 and later):This header provides atomic types (e.g., std::atomic<int>) that guarantee operations on them are indivisible and correctly synchronized across threads, leveraging underlying hardware primitives (which often involve cache coherency protocols). They come with various memory orderings (std::memory_order_relaxed, std::memory_order_acquire, std::memory_order_release, std::memory_order_seq_cst) that allow fine-grained control over visibility.
• Memory Barriers/Fences: Functions like std::atomic_thread_fence (C++), _mm_mfence (Intel x86 intrinsics), or __sync_synchronize (GCC built-in) insert instructions that ensure memory operations issued before the fence complete before operations issued after the fence. This forces a specific order of memory visibility, often by flushing or invalidating cache lines.
• alignas (C++11):This keyword allows you to specify the alignment requirement for a variable or type. You can use it to force objects or struct members onto different cache lines to prevent false sharing.

  struct alignas(64) PaddedData { // Forces struct to be 64-byte aligned long value; // No explicit padding needed within the struct if the struct itself is aligned
  };
  

  Alternatively, explicit padding:

  struct DataWithPadding { long value1; char pad[64 - sizeof(long)]; // Pad to ensure value2 starts on a new cache line long value2;
  };
  

3. Memory Sanitizers: While primarily for detecting memory errors (use-after-free, out-of-bounds), tools like Google’s ThreadSanitizer (TSan)(often integrated with GCC/Clang) are excellent for finding data races, which are inherently tied to cache coherency and incorrect synchronization. TSan can pinpoint exact lines of code where concurrent accesses to shared memory are unsynchronized.

• Installation (GCC/Clang): Compile with -fsanitize=thread.
• Usage Example: g++ -fsanitize=thread your_program.cpp -o your_program -pthread then ./your_program

4. Documentation and Literature:

• “What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory” by Ulrich Drepper:An essential read, albeit dense, for understanding memory hierarchies and their impact on performance.
• Processor Manuals (Intel/AMD):The authoritative sources for understanding memory models, cache architectures, and available intrinsics.
• Books on Concurrency:“Concurrency in C++” by Anthony Williams, “C++ Concurrency in Action” by Anthony Williams, and “The Art of Multiprocessor Programming” by Maurice Herlihy and Nir Shavit provide theoretical and practical insights into building correct concurrent applications, often touching on cache implications.

Mastering these tools and techniques transforms cache coherency from an abstract concept into an actionable dimension of performance optimization, enabling you to write faster, more reliable concurrent software.

Crafting Code for Cache: Practical Coherency Patterns

Understanding cache coherency isn’t just about avoiding problems; it’s about actively designing code that leverages the CPU’s memory hierarchy for maximum performance. Here, we explore practical scenarios, code examples, and best practices.

Photo by BoliviaInteligente on Unsplash

1. Battling False Sharing with Alignment

False sharing is arguably the most common cache coherency pitfall for developers. It occurs when unrelated data, frequently accessed by different CPU cores, resides within the same cache line. Even though the data items are logically distinct, the hardware treats the entire cache line as the unit of coherency. When one core modifies its data, the entire cache line gets invalidated in other cores, forcing them to re-fetch it, even if their data within that line wasn’t actually modified. This leads to excessive cache line bouncing and performance degradation.

Code Example: Preventing False Sharing

Imagine a scenario where multiple threads update their individual counters:

#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
#include <chrono> // PROBLEM: Without padding, 'counter1' and 'counter2' might reside on the same cache line.
// Accessing 'counter1.value' by thread 0 invalidates the cache line for thread 1,
// even if thread 1 is only touching 'counter2.value'.
struct BadCounter { long value; // No padding
}; // SOLUTION: Explicit padding to ensure each 'value' is on its own cache line.
// Assuming a 64-byte cache line size (common on x86-64).
struct GoodCounter { long value; char padding[64 - sizeof(long)]; // Ensures next data starts on a new cache line
}; void increment_counter(long counter_ptr, int iterations) { for (int i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) { (counter_ptr)++; }
} int main() { const int num_threads = 4; const int iterations_per_thread = 50000000; // --- Using BadCounter (prone to false sharing) --- // std::vector<BadCounter> bad_counters(num_threads); // std::cout << "Running with BadCounter (prone to false sharing)..." << std::endl; // auto start_bad = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); // std::vector<std::thread> bad_threads; // for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) { // bad_threads.emplace_back(increment_counter, &bad_counters[i].value, iterations_per_thread); // } // for (auto& t : bad_threads) { t.join(); } // auto end_bad = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); // std::chrono::duration<double, std::milli> duration_bad = end_bad - start_bad; // std::cout << "BadCounter total time: " << duration_bad.count() << " ms" << std::endl; // --- Using GoodCounter (mitigates false sharing) --- std::vector<GoodCounter> good_counters(num_threads); std::cout << "Running with GoodCounter (mitigated false sharing)..." << std::endl; auto start_good = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); std::vector<std::thread> good_threads; for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) { good_threads.emplace_back(increment_counter, &good_counters[i].value, iterations_per_thread); } for (auto& t : good_threads) { t.join(); } auto end_good = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); std::chrono::duration<double, std::milli> duration_good = end_good - start_good; std::cout << "GoodCounter total time: " << duration_good.count() << " ms" << std::endl; return 0;
}

Observation: If you uncomment the BadCounter block and run both, you’ll likely see the GoodCounter version run significantly faster, especially with more threads. This demonstrates the impact of false sharing and the effectiveness of padding.

Best Practice:When designing data structures accessed concurrently by different threads, always consider padding or explicit alignment (alignas) to prevent unrelated variables from sharing a cache line.

2. The Nuance of Memory Barriers and Atomic Operations

While std::atomic operations handle many coherency concerns automatically by issuing appropriate memory barriers, understanding memory barriers explicitly is crucial for advanced lock-free programming or when interacting with low-level hardware.

Memory barriers (or fences) are instructions that impose an ordering constraint on memory operations. They ensure that all memory operations before the barrier complete before any memory operations after the barrier begin, from the perspective of the CPU and its caches. This forces visibility across cores.

Practical Use Case: Lock-Free Queues (Simplified Producer-Consumer)

Consider a very simplified producer-consumer model where std::atomic and memory orders are used to ensure correct visibility of head and tail pointers in a queue, without explicit locks.

#include <vector>
#include <atomic>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream> const int QUEUE_SIZE = 10;
int queue_buffer[QUEUE_SIZE];
std::atomic<int> head{0}; // Read by consumer, written by producer
std::atomic<int> tail{0}; // Read by producer, written by consumer void producer(int items_to_produce) { for (int i = 0; i < items_to_produce; ++i) { int current_tail = tail.load(std::memory_order_relaxed); int next_tail = (current_tail + 1) % QUEUE_SIZE; while (next_tail == head.load(std::memory_order_acquire)) { // Wait if queue is full std::this_thread::yield(); } queue_buffer[current_tail] = i; tail.store(next_tail, std::memory_order_release); // Make data visible }
} void consumer(int items_to_consume) { for (int i = 0; i < items_to_consume; ++i) { int current_head = head.load(std::memory_order_relaxed); int next_head = (current_head + 1) % QUEUE_SIZE; while (current_head == tail.load(std::memory_order_acquire)) { // Wait if queue is empty std::this_thread::yield(); } int data = queue_buffer[current_head]; // std::cout << "Consumed: " << data << std::endl; // For debugging head.store(next_head, std::memory_order_release); // Make read visible }
} int main() { const int num_items = 1000000; std::thread prod_thread(producer, num_items); std::thread cons_thread(consumer, num_items); prod_thread.join(); cons_thread.join(); std::cout << "Producer and Consumer finished." << std::endl; return 0;
}

Explanation: The std::memory_order_acquire on head.load() and tail.load() ensures that all prior writes (by the other thread) are visible before the consumer/producer proceeds. std::memory_order_release on tail.store() and head.store() ensures that all its own prior writes (like to queue_buffer) are visible to other threads after the store. These memory orders translate into specific hardware instructions (which involve cache coherency operations) to synchronize memory views across cores.

3. Cache-Aware Data Structures and Algorithms

Beyond preventing issues, understanding cache behavior can guide the design of your data structures and algorithms.

• Contiguous Memory:Data stored contiguously in memory (like std::vector or plain arrays) generally performs better than scattered data (like std::list or pointer-heavy structures). Accessing elements in a std::vector often results in a cache hit for subsequent elements because they are likely in the same cache line that was just fetched.
• Iterate in Cache Line Order:When iterating over multi-dimensional arrays, ensure you access elements in a way that respects cache line ordering (e.g., row-major for C/C++ arrays).
• Data Locality:Group frequently accessed data together. If two variables are always used together, placing them physically close in memory (ideally within the same cache line) can significantly reduce cache misses.

By actively considering cache coherency and data locality, developers move beyond merely writing correct concurrent code to writing performant concurrent code. These patterns and practices are fundamental for achieving the highest levels of optimization in modern computing environments.

Beyond Locks: Cache Coherency vs. Higher-Level Concurrency

Developers often rely on high-level concurrency primitives like mutexes, semaphores, and condition variables provided by operating systems or language runtimes. These tools abstract away the intricate details of memory synchronization and cache coherency, offering a simpler path to correctness for most concurrent programming tasks. However, understanding CPU cache coherency protocols provides a crucial advantage: the ability to transcend these abstractions for extreme performance and deep-seated debugging.

When to Embrace Higher-Level Primitives (Mutexes, Semaphores):

• Simplicity and Safety First:For most application-level concurrency, standard locks and queues are the pragmatic choice. They are robust, well-tested, and significantly reduce the likelihood of introducing subtle synchronization bugs.
• Guaranteed Correctness:Mutexes (mutual exclusion locks) ensure that only one thread can access a critical section at a time. This simplifies reasoning about shared data, as the system guarantees visibility and atomicity within that critical section. The OS or runtime handles the underlying memory barriers and cache flushing/invalidation necessary to maintain consistency.
• Ease of Maintenance:Code using standard primitives is generally easier to read, understand, and maintain by a team.
• Typical Overhead:While locks incur overhead (context switching, cache line contention on the lock variable itself), for many applications, this overhead is negligible compared to the work being done within the critical section.

When to Dive Deep into Cache Coherency (for Lock-Free or Highly Optimized Code):

• Extreme Performance Requirements:In scenarios demanding ultra-low latency, high throughput, or when minimizing contention is paramount (e.g., financial trading systems, real-time embedded systems, high-performance computing, kernel development), the overhead of locks can become unacceptable.
• Lock-Free Algorithms:Developing lock-free data structures (like lock-free queues, hash maps) requires a profound understanding of cache coherency, memory models, and atomic operations with specific memory ordering guarantees. These algorithms aim to eliminate locks entirely, relying on atomic compare-and-swap operations and careful memory barrier placement to ensure correctness without blocking threads.
• Diagnosing Elusive Performance Bottlenecks:When a multi-threaded application underperforms even with proper locking, cache coherency issues like false sharing are often the silent culprits. Without profiling tools and the knowledge to interpret their output concerning cache misses and invalidations, such problems are nearly impossible to diagnose.
• Optimizing Shared Data Layout:Understanding cache lines allows developers to design data structures (e.g., using padding, alignas) that naturally avoid contention and reduce cache coherency traffic, even when using locks. For instance, putting a mutex and the data it protects on the same cache line can lead to better performance than if they are separate.

Practical Insights:

• Start Simple:Always begin with higher-level concurrency primitives. Only when profiling reveals that these are the bottleneck, and the performance gains justify the increased complexity, should you consider delving into lock-free techniques requiring explicit cache coherency considerations.
• Complexity vs. Performance Trade-off:Lock-free algorithms are notoriously difficult to implement correctly. A single misplaced memory barrier or incorrect atomic operation can lead to subtle bugs that are extremely hard to reproduce and debug. The performance gain must truly outweigh this complexity.
• Bridging the Gap:Even when using high-level primitives, knowing about cache coherency can inform decisions about data structure layout. For example, ensuring that a mutex variable and the critical data it protects reside on different cache lines might reduce contention on the mutex itself, while ensuring the data it protects is cache-friendly for the thread holding the lock.

In essence, high-level primitives are the sturdy, reliable bridges for most concurrent programming. Cache coherency knowledge, however, allows you to build custom, high-speed tunnels beneath the river when the bridges just aren’t fast enough. Both are vital, but their application depends on the specific performance and correctness requirements of your project.

The Silent Architects of Speed: Embracing Cache-Aware Development

Modern computing power hinges significantly on the efficient interaction between CPUs and their multi-layered caches. While CPUs transparently handle the complex dance of cache coherency protocols like MESI, their profound impact on software performance and correctness is anything but invisible to the discerning developer. Embracing cache-aware development means moving beyond a superficial understanding of multi-threading to truly comprehending how your code interacts with the underlying hardware’s memory hierarchy.

We’ve explored how understanding concepts like cache lines, coherency states, and the insidious nature of false sharing can transform slow, contention-ridden concurrent code into a high-performance engine. We’ve highlighted practical tools—from the humble perf utility to sophisticated profilers like Intel VTune—that allow us to peer into the CPU’s memory behavior. Furthermore, language features like std::atomic and alignment directives (alignas) empower us to directly influence how data is laid out and synchronized, preventing coherency issues before they manifest.

For developers, this isn’t just an academic exercise; it’s a critical skill for building the next generation of highly concurrent, scalable, and performant applications. As CPU architectures continue to evolve, with more cores, complex NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access) designs, and emerging memory technologies, the principles of cache coherency will only grow in importance. By internalizing these concepts, you’re not just fixing bugs; you’re becoming a silent architect of speed, capable of crafting code that truly harnesses the full potential of modern silicon. Continue to experiment, profile, and question how your data moves through the memory hierarchy – your applications will thank you for it.

Unraveling Cache Coherency: Your Questions Answered

Why is cache coherency important for software developers?

Cache coherency is crucial because it ensures data consistency across multiple CPU cores. Without it, when different cores operate on shared data, their local caches could hold conflicting or stale versions, leading to incorrect program behavior, race conditions, and corrupted data in multi-threaded applications. For developers, understanding it is vital for writing correct, high-performance concurrent code and for debugging subtle performance bottlenecks like false sharing.

What is false sharing and how do I prevent it?

False sharing occurs when two or more threads access different, logically independent data items that happen to reside within the same cache line. Even though the data is distinct, the cache coherency protocol treats the entire cache line as the unit of transfer and synchronization. When one thread modifies its data, the entire cache line is invalidated in other cores, forcing them to re-fetch it, leading to excessive cache traffic and performance degradation. You can prevent false sharing by ensuring that concurrently accessed, unrelated data items are placed on separate cache lines. This is typically achieved through:

1. Padding:Adding unused bytes to a data structure to ensure that the next member (or the next instance in an array) starts on a new cache line.
2. Alignment:Using language features like C++'s alignas to explicitly force data structures or variables to be aligned to a cache line boundary (e.g., 64 bytes).

Do I need to manage cache coherency manually?

No, CPU cache coherency protocols are managed automatically by the hardware (e.g., through mechanisms like bus snooping or directory-based systems). As a developer, you don’t directly “manage” the protocols themselves. However, you absolutely need to write your code in a way that respects and accounts for these protocols. This involves using proper synchronization primitives (mutexes, atomics), memory barriers, and designing data structures that avoid cache-unfriendly patterns like false sharing, thereby influencing how the hardware’s coherency mechanisms operate.

How do memory barriers relate to cache coherency?

Memory barriers (also called memory fences) are special instructions that enforce a specific ordering of memory operations. They tell the CPU and memory hierarchy not to reorder loads/stores across the barrier. From a cache coherency perspective, a memory barrier can force a CPU to flush its write buffer, push modified cache lines to a higher level of cache or main memory, or invalidate stale cache lines in its local cache. This ensures that memory operations become visible to other cores in a predictable order, which is critical for the correctness of concurrent algorithms.

What’s the difference between cache coherency and memory consistency?

• Cache Coherency focuses on ensuring that all copies of a specific memory block (cache line) are consistent across all caches in a multi-processor system. It deals with the data values themselves: if one core writes to X, other cores eventually see that write. Protocols like MESI guarantee this.
• Memory Consistency (or Memory Ordering) defines the order in which memory operations (reads and writes) from different processors are observed by all processors. It’s a higher-level concept that dictates how the shared memory appears to be ordered. Strong consistency models (like sequential consistency) guarantee that operations appear to execute in a single global order, while weaker models allow reordering for performance, requiring explicit memory barriers to enforce specific orderings when needed. Cache coherency is a prerequisite for achieving any form of memory consistency in a multi-core system.

---

Essential Technical Terms

1. Cache Line:The smallest unit of data (typically 64 bytes) that is transferred between main memory and a CPU cache, or between different levels of cache.
2. MESI Protocol:A widely used cache coherency protocol that defines four states for each cache line: Modified (M), Exclusive (E), Shared (S), and Invalid (I), guiding how caches interact to maintain data consistency.
3. Snooping:A mechanism used in cache coherency where each cache monitors (snoops) the bus or interconnect for memory transactions initiated by other caches or processors, reacting to maintain its cache line states.
4. False Sharing:A performance anti-pattern where unrelated data items, accessed by different CPU cores, inadvertently share the same cache line, leading to unnecessary cache invalidations and contention.
5. Memory Barrier (Memory Fence):A type of instruction that enforces ordering constraints on memory operations, ensuring that operations before the barrier complete before operations after it, from the perspective of the CPU and other cores.

Published on October 29, 2025