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:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:28:45 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tools/memory-model: Remove (dep ; rfi) from ppo
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190222112128.GA7213@andrea>
 <20190222130014.GY32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190225175517.GK4072@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190226093009.GS32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226104551.GF32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226112133.GG32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226112521.GH32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226113008.GI32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190226113813.GA14753@zn.tnic>
 <20190226134906.GG32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190226134906.GG32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190226142845.GK4072@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:49:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > When I used the argc variant, gcc-8 'works', but with s/argc/1/ it is
> > > still broken.
> > 
> > As requested on IRC:
> 
> What I asked was if you could get your GCC developer friends to have a
> look at this :-)

Yes, this all is a bit on the insane side from a kernel viewpoint.
But the paper you found does not impose this; it has instead been there
for about 20 years, back before C and C++ admitted to the existence
of concurrency.  But of course compilers are getting more aggressive,
and yes, some of the problems show up in single-threaded code.

The usual response is "then cast the pointers to intptr_t!" but of
course that breaks type checking.

There is an effort to claw back the concurrency pieces, and I would
be happy to run the resulting paper past you guys.

I must confess to not being all that sympathetic to code that takes
advantage of happenstance stack-frame layout.  Is there some reason
we need that?

							Thanx, Paul