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, 12 Jul 2018 23:23:51 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
 remove it for ordinary release/acquire
Message-ID: <20180712212351.GA5480@andrea>
References: <20180712175228.GB3533@andrea>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1807121637050.1306-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20180712211348.GA5308@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180712211348.GA5308@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:13:48PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:43:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > 
> > > > It seems reasonable to ask people to learn that locks have stronger
> > > > ordering guarantees than RMW atomics do.  Maybe not the greatest
> > > > situation in the world, but one I think we could live with.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, this was one of my main objections.
> > 
> > Does this mean you don't think you could live with it?
> 
> Well, I *could* leave with it and with RCtso locks, ;-) but I'd rather not.
> 
> Assuming that I will not be able to resist this RCtso trend, ;-) would the
> below (completely untested) work?
> 
>   let rmw = rmw | lk-rmw   (* from lock.cat *)
>   let po-unlock-rf-lock-po = po ; [Release] ; rf ; [domain(rmw)] ; po

domain(rmw) & Acquire, maybe...

  Andrea


>   [the rest of your patch + the updates to the doc. I suggested in v2 ;-)]
> 
>    Andrea