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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C12C43142 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:55:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA0F23FD3 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:55:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1DA0F23FD3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933521AbeFVJzQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 05:55:16 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60894 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751401AbeFVJzM (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 05:55:12 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C9F1596; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 02:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 965823F819; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 02:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 074941AE2E48; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:55:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:55:47 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Alan Stern Cc: LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa , Andrea Parri , Boqun Feng , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Nicholas Piggin , "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Kernel development list Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by release-acquire and by locks Message-ID: <20180622095547.GE7601@arm.com> References: <20180622080928.GB7601@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180622080928.GB7601@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 09:09:28AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM > > should enforce ordering of writes by release-acquire chains and by > > locking. In other words, given the following code: > > > > WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); > > spin_unlock(&s): > > spin_lock(&s); > > WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); > > > > or the following: > > > > smp_store_release(&x, 1); > > r1 = smp_load_acquire(&x); // r1 = 1 > > WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); > > > > the stores to x and y should be propagated in order to all other CPUs, > > even though those other CPUs might not access the lock s or be part of > > the release-acquire chain. In terms of the memory model, this means > > that rel-rf-acq-po should be part of the cumul-fence relation. > > > > All the architectures supported by the Linux kernel (including RISC-V) > > do behave this way, albeit for varying reasons. Therefore this patch > > changes the model in accordance with the developers' wishes. > > Interesting... > > I think the second example would preclude us using LDAPR for load-acquire, > so I'm surprised that RISC-V is ok with this. For example, the first test > below is allowed on arm64. > > I also think this would break if we used DMB LD to implement load-acquire > (second test below). > > So I'm not a big fan of this change, and I'm surprised this works on all > architectures. What's the justification? I also just realised that this prevents Power from using ctrl+isync to implement acquire, should they wish to do so. Will