Cache coherence protocols based on self-invalidation allow simpler hardware implementation compared to traditional write-invalidation protocols, by relying on data-race-free semantics and applying self-invalidation on synchronization points. Their simplicity lies in the absence of invalidation traffic. This eliminates the need to track readers in a directory, and reduces the number of transient protocol states. Similarly, the use of self-downgrade on synchronization eliminates directory indirection, and hence the need to track writers in a directory. These protocols, effectively without a directory, have the potential to reduce area, energy consumption, and complexity, without sacrificing performance-provided, that self-invalidation and self-downgrade are performed prudently. In this work we examine how self-invalidation and self-downgrade are performed in relation to atomicity and ordering. We show that self-invalidation and self-downgrade do not need to be applied conservatively, as so far implemented. Our key observation is that, often, critical sections which are not ordered in time, are intended to provide only atomicity and not thread synchronization. We thus propose a new type of self-invalidation, forward-self-invalidation (FSI), which invalidates solely data that are going to be accessed inside a critical section. Based on the same reasoning, we propose a new type of self-downgrade, forward self-downgrade (FSD), also restricted to writes in critical sections. Finally, we define the semantics of locks using FSI and FSD, which resemble the semantics of relaxed atomic operations in C++. Our evaluation for 64-core multiprocessors shows significant improvements using the proposed FSI and FSD-where applicable-in Splash-3 and PARSEC benchmarks, over a directory-based protocol (17.1 percent in execution time and 33.9 percent in energy consumption) and also over a state-of-the-art self-invalidation/self-downgrade protocol (7.6 percent in execution time and 9.1 percent in energy consumption), while still retaining the design simplicity of the protocol.

Cache coherence protocols based on self-invalidation allow simpler hardware implementation compared to traditional write-invalidation protocols, by relying on data-race-free semantics and applying self-invalidation and self-downgrade on synchronization points. This work examines how self-invalidation and self-downgrade are performed in relation to atomicity and ordering and shows that they do not need to be applied conservatively, as so far implemented. Our key observation is that, often, critical sections which are not ordered in time, are intended to provide only atomicity but not thread synchronization.

Benchmarks are indispensable in evaluating the performance implications of new research ideas. However, their usefulness is compromised if they do not work correctly on a system under evaluation or, in general, if they cannot be used consistently to compare different systems. A well-known benchmark suite of parallel applications is the Splash-2 suite. Since its creation in the context of the DASH project, Splash-2 benchmarks have been widely used in research. However, Splash-2 was released over two decades ago and does not adhere to the recent C memory consistency model. This leads to unexpected and often incorrect behavior when some Splash-2 benchmarks are used in conjunction with contemporary compilers and hardware (simulated or real). Most importantly, we discovered critical performance bugs that may question some of the reported benchmark results. In this work, we analyze the Splash-2 benchmarks and expose data races and related performance bugs. We rectify the problematic benchmarks and evaluate the resulting performance. Our work contributes to the community a new sanitized version of the Splash-2 benchmarks, called the Splash-3 benchmark suite.