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;
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:25:53 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by
 release-acquire and by locks
Message-ID: <20180622112553.GA10658@andrea>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806211322160.2381-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20180622080928.GB7601@arm.com>
 <20180622095547.GE7601@arm.com>
 <20180622103129.GQ2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180622103838.GF7601@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180622103838.GF7601@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > I also just realised that this prevents Power from using ctrl+isync to
> > > implement acquire, should they wish to do so.
> > 
> > They in fact do so on chips lacking LWSYNC, see how PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER
> > (as used by atomic_*_acquire) turns into ISYNC (note however that they
> > do not use PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER for smp_load_acquire -- because there's
> > no CTRL there).
> 
> Right, so the example in the commit message is broken on PPC then. I think
> it's also broken on RISC-V, despite the claim.

I agree for RISC-V (and I missed it in my earlier review): the 2nd
snippet from the commit message would map to something like

   fence rw, w
   STORE #1,[x]
   LOAD  [x]
   fence r ,rw
   STORE #1,[y]

and there would be no guarantee that the stores to x and y will be
propagated in program order to another CPU, AFAICT.  Thank you for
pointing this out.

  Andrea