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:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 09:32:29 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.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: <20180625073229.GR2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180622080928.GB7601@arm.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806221337440.1454-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806221337440.1454-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


I have yet to digest the rest of the discussion, however:

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:09:04PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> The LKMM uses the same CAT code for acquire/release and lock/unlock.
> (In essence, it considers a lock to be an acquire and an unlock to be a
> release; everything else follows from that.)  Treating one differently
> from the other in these tests would require some significant changes.
> It wouldn't be easy.

That is problematic, acquire+release are very much simpler operations
than lock+unlock.

At the very least, lock includes a control-dependency, where acquire
does not.