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:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 20:38:36 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Cc:     paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        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: <20180705183836.GA3175@andrea>
References: <20180704121103.GB26941@arm.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1807051010380.1697-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20180705153140.GO3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <b41849a8-76cd-2375-dd80-c1bdeb9ea7d2@nvidia.com>
 <20180705162225.GH14470@arm.com>
 <20180705165602.GQ3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <eeaf2ad2-39a0-2ce9-b628-6775baad4e8a@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <eeaf2ad2-39a0-2ce9-b628-6775baad4e8a@nvidia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> No, I'm definitely not pushing for anything stronger.  I'm still just
> wondering if the name "RCsc" is right for what you described.  For
> example, Andrea just said this in a parallel email:
> 
> > "RCsc" as ordering everything except for W -> R, without the [extra]
> > barriers

And I already regret it: the point is, different communities/people have
different things in mind when they use terms such as "RCsc" or "ordering"
and different communities seems to be represented in LKMM.

Really, I don't think that this is simply a matter of naming (personally,
I'd be OK with "foo" or whather you suggested below! ;-)). My suggestion
would be: "get in there!! ;-) please let's refrain from using terms such
as these (_overly_ overloaded) "RCsc" and "order" when talking about MCM
let's rather talk, say, about "ppo", "cumul-fence" ...

  Andrea


> 
> If it's "RCsc with exceptions", doesn't it make sense to find a
> different name, rather than simply overloading the term "RCsc" with
> a subtly different meaning, and hoping nobody gets confused?
> 
> I suppose on x86 and ARM you'd happen to get "true RCsc" anyway, just
> due to the way things are currently mapped: LOCKed RMWs and "true RCsc"
> instructions, respectively.  But on Power and RISC-V, it would really
> be more "RCsc with a W->R exception", right?
> 
> In fact, the more I think about it, this doesn't seem to be RCsc at all.
> It seems closer to "RCpc plus extra PC ordering between critical
> sections".  No?
> 
> The synchronization accesses themselves aren't sequentially consistent
> with respect to each other under the Power or RISC-V mappings, unless
> there's a hwsync in there somewhere that I missed?  Or a rule
> preventing stw from forwarding to lwarx?  Or some other higher-order
> effect preventing it from being observed anyway?
> 
> So that's all I'm suggesting here.  If you all buy that, maybe "RCpccs"
> for "RCpc with processor consistent critical section ordering"?
> I don't have a strong opinion on the name itself; I just want to find
> a name that's less ambiguous or overloaded.
> 
> Dan