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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 D29F1C6778A for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C09D22EC0 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amarulasolutions.com header.i=@amarulasolutions.com header.b="mMfJ42o0" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1C09D22EC0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=amarulasolutions.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 S1753764AbeGEPjP (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:39:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:39318 "EHLO mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753264AbeGEPjO (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:39:14 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p11-v6so11633406wmc.4 for ; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:39:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amarulasolutions.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YbE1+ZVIWSIRAfy1BOTmk22Yq7hjrax/v3Pc68gTU5g=; b=mMfJ42o0qr84dlyec0h9vBBMeqD7OKaBXosD8l1LC/NNYSiHL8McwB8k8DCykHSMbO +XnU93O5kWx7t/oZZ9qSJCCBVUSISxgQf6fx57GRJLfJE1a9JWy/ULPmH6j6YKJd1ZRV YY7U2Z1KnT5xZEs3RPqa/XbkZbPENMU7P8Rjw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YbE1+ZVIWSIRAfy1BOTmk22Yq7hjrax/v3Pc68gTU5g=; b=rU4rhSbkJW8CLy2WFUge03b6wnqAYBalxJXFyuWZ9Mgu8kBdnagHaUgbi8IeFnxd0E zSG5PivvRgB9AyqaaG7UGxVQkqtyqm3SkaWkVNipgm++s6jW14u2vrZ/EjG89Kppplhw le/PbWKOtzLEj1LdqhzIRZIc7u/FNBOJe/ejhv8s4WV/up13JeuEHNAd5lg4RRzqJ/dQ RXaaDyzd6gyIW+oXo43of4FUkeK7ktuX8/PkOddG0juo01FFqAv8FMvwHFnL7yujFhHm iuggWkQ3MFltclprZ286DTscJusZ88WHDeapZoHv6/VEg4PKGK4ozbxYQfT47Ka+HMrw z0tg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0xZYkEHAWB3aSxdU2ijp6Qd6gxCpL9r8gRK2qNhnXOywjgyUGZ D2Yopoqf08O7YUNikTgXAMxPdw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeYU5ZsuU2shxG75U3mpBgH8kIMny1n3zRya67hLNV+/woVIonWtU1Cj8MN9zkc16ZzHOyKKA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b004:: with SMTP id z4-v6mr4704349wme.70.1530805152901; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from andrea ([94.230.152.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j9-v6sm8477437wrr.52.2018.07.05.08.39.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Jul 2018 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:39:06 +0200 From: Andrea Parri To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Alan Stern , Will Deacon , LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa , Boqun Feng , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Nicholas Piggin , Peter Zijlstra , Kernel development list , dlustig@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by release-acquire and by locks Message-ID: <20180705153906.GA2345@andrea> References: <20180704121103.GB26941@arm.com> <20180705153140.GO3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180705153140.GO3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > At any rate, it looks like instead of strengthening the relation, I > > should write a patch that removes it entirely. I also will add new, > > stronger relations for use with locking, essentially making spin_lock > > and spin_unlock be RCsc. > > Only in the presence of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or > smp_mb__after_spinlock(), correct? Or am I confused about RCsc? There are at least two definitions of RCsc: one as documented in the header comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock() or rather in the patch under review..., one as processor architects used to intend it. ;-) Andrea > Thanx, Paul >