Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Organization: Oracle
To:     stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@inria.fr, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        akiyks@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Subject: Control dependency between prior load in while condition and later
 store?
Message-ID: <087a5ca4-e788-60ee-9145-3a078781cf05@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:29:33 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

A question for memory-barriers.txt aficionados.

Is there a control dependency between the prior load of 'a' and the 
later store of 'c'?:

   while (READ_ONCE(a));
   WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);

I have my doubts because memory-barriers.txt doesn't talk much about 
loops and because of what that document says here:

   In addition, control dependencies apply only to the then-clause and
   else-clause of the if-statement in question.  In particular, it does
   not necessarily apply to code following the if-statement:

   	q = READ_ONCE(a);
   	if (q) {
   		WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
   	} else {
   		WRITE_ONCE(b, 2);
   	}
   	WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);  /* BUG: No ordering against the read from 'a'. */

It's not obvious to me how the then-clause/else-clause idea maps onto 
loops, but if we think of the example at the top like this...

   while (1) {
       if (!READ_ONCE(a)) {
           WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);
           break;
       }
   }

...then the dependent store is within the then-clause.  Viewed this way, 
it seems there would be a control dependency between a and c.

Is that right?

Thanks,
Daniel