From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A09ECAAA2 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 02:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229513AbiH2Cdb (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2022 22:33:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40558 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229453AbiH2Cdb (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2022 22:33:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF39630F6D; Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id gb36so12986541ejc.10; Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:33:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc; bh=L51GDzPSG19BfJI114hwBB3IlYH+VcFb/yVVpkhA/C0=; b=ly+BJ+KVFpL+n5YzFS01gEAHFL6WgRg35f6oW2wkxW6uXnx09LaB9uj4AX8+PzRJsv O903MaDO1aAGhzIflMg6+W4xBWakprYZ9koGcGsWmkCcLGCQBFWHidSnb72UJaCJMp/t QexAj/9737cNalhQ0Sr70OYu3G05/VMZumDanYkr+3LNLZZaxM6F/p0P4JMf8pt8OF3Q WSYZLVK7T+hcg2Td82MCAdWbRe7ZIjwk0DhUi5csmUZJzbCVlNXerSFncKYdI1crnvHf kYWqpJq8f+TaP749QtlKMf29mOBVbzrnA27O9DIdmIew7QMuV1EZ/LevbfrCDPMgq8b6 +l+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=L51GDzPSG19BfJI114hwBB3IlYH+VcFb/yVVpkhA/C0=; b=m+a4Oar0ZWMwtUuaZl3veExP9ItntBW9Vvbm5dpAk9NG1Q0gMVy+2JB2ZST+qwNgN2 RCZeVxICswisJDmznnfPV8cQQ/SRHsSvLKR/7VPRuMMkpjLn1HcWqFWb8fQtzOTibfro RlmH3u+THCNaaCjweR3+gVfaHT25Vr4MUvfKpQjAzD9yCIOyZLtRJdOWq2yGCVuSdDjT f1K5Xt/ZGYnEiuqwg2ZKR9Cw3GmagO0PQEeRyX2o1A6vii1AUTy7CXcVQbDTHi/BRZHG xJAsDPYqCfH919w12o7ueyuTVNeGbUcao+6v/b1HZgR3gPye7H8B8DocqITmnafJDitn INoQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2Q6ddKVlYi6BdurVYRetw0gGvYtfkUKDyofPnl0m+rbPNmdhzy FUU4QQKmfiM6nELKcut3OAQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6zBuDXPoBxRNjxcvNcQ7cU+mpyItWPhRyi2L/lhYPpVNVMcBpzfkqhDonH4hJPEq16OguBJw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3a15:b0:73d:80bf:542c with SMTP id z21-20020a1709063a1500b0073d80bf542cmr12215431eje.633.1661740408294; Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from anparri (host-95-238-28-128.retail.telecomitalia.it. [95.238.28.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u21-20020a170906781500b0072f42ca292bsm3824851ejm.129.2022.08.28.19.33.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 04:33:23 +0200 From: Andrea Parri To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com, dlustig@nvidia.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: "Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak Memory Models" Message-ID: References: <20220826124812.GA3007435@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220826124812.GA3007435@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 05:48:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hello! > > I have not yet done more than glance at this one, but figured I should > send it along sooner rather than later. > > "Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak > Memory Models", Antonio Paolillo, Hernán Ponce-de-León, Thomas > Haas, Diogo Behrens, Rafael Chehab, Ming Fu, and Roland Meyer. > https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15240 > > The claim is that the queued spinlocks implementation with CNA violates > LKMM but actually works on all architectures having a formal hardware > memory model. > > Thoughts? Section 4 ends with a discussion about certain "spurious" data races. Do we have litmus tests with them? (I could repro with Dartagnan...) Thanks, Andrea