Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753253AbaBRAJY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:09:24 -0500
Received: from mail-ve0-f177.google.com ([209.85.128.177]:60581 "EHLO
	mail-ve0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751005AbaBRAJW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:09:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1392679048.18779.7168.camel@triegel.csb>
References: <20140207180216.GP4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1391992071.18779.99.camel@triegel.csb>
	<CA+55aFwTwCPMpYTL_vCgNNP0hE8s2sgB0iw-79=xoj99V0JUNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1392183564.18779.2187.camel@triegel.csb>
	<20140212180739.GB4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<CA+55aFw3S82GYdtnV2nJCvBGcuZf6kXdF5b7Vp9yb21QKr49Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140213002355.GI4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1392321837.18779.3249.camel@triegel.csb>
	<20140214020144.GO4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1392352981.18779.3800.camel@triegel.csb>
	<20140214172920.GQ4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<CA+55aFx9CbgrfK4rBVYD75y2KoWiO90dSYsAW83O-tYVLK-gkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1392485428.18779.6387.camel@triegel.csb>
	<CA+55aFw5v8Zc818YoxazFhP0btN1faofNbED=qrpi3VrtRA39w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1392674986.18779.7038.camel@triegel.csb>
	<CA+55aFz-gaNKxRGU-YPw3xu=T8ZxFv0v22i+R7vWoeQT0i+8Mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1392679048.18779.7168.camel@triegel.csb>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:09:21 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: bEGSfR_UhfH6-NJTTBTpdydEJKY
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxw+k66jgOVKr0nDuUA91svcZKkBb5purMbfPrO+C+5sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 14:32 -0800,
>
>> Stop claiming it "can return 1".. It *never* returns 1 unless you do
>> the load and *verify* it, or unless the load itself can be made to go
>> away. And with the code sequence given, that just doesn't happen. END
>> OF STORY.
>
> void foo();
> {
>   atomic<int> x = 1;
>   if (atomic_load(&x, mo_relaxed) == 1)
>     atomic_store(&y, 3, mo_relaxed));
> }

This is the very example I gave, where the real issue is not that "you
prove that load returns 1", you instead say "store followed by a load
can be combined".

I (in another email I just wrote) tried to show why the "prove
something is true" is a very dangerous model.  Seriously, it's pure
crap. It's broken.

If the C standard defines atomics in terms of "provable equivalence",
it's broken. Exactly because on a *virtual* machine you can prove
things that are not actually true in a *real* machine. I have the
example of value speculation changing the memory ordering model of the
actual machine.

See?

                Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/