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 11:06:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        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: <20180625090648.GU2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180622080928.GB7601@arm.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806221337440.1454-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20180625073229.GR2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180625082923.GA5808@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180625082923.GA5808@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:29:23AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 09:32:29AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> I don't see how this is relevant here; roughly, "if something is guaranteed
> by a control-dependency, that is also guaranteed by an acquire".  Right? ;)

Right, you are, clearly I needs me a wake up drink :-).. So lock does
very fundamentally involve a RmW, and it has the whole wait-until loop
thing in. But yes, now I'm strugging to better express how it's
different from a memory ordering pov.

But still, the lock case will/must disallow the re-ordering (since we rely on
it), whereas the pure acquire/release seems to be struggling.

Personally I prefer a stronger model over a weaker one (as does Linus
IIRC) but clearly people have different opinions on that.