Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 17:35:19 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com,
        dlustig@nvidia.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro
Message-ID: <20201005153519.GJ2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201001161529.GA251468@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20201001213048.GF29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20201003132212.GB318272@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20201004233146.GP29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20201005023846.GA359428@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20201005082002.GA23216@willie-the-truck>
 <20201005091247.GA23575@willie-the-truck>
 <20201005142351.GB376584@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20201005151313.GA23892@willie-the-truck>
 <20201005151639.GE376584@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201005151639.GE376584@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:16:39AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > The failure to recognize the dependency in P0 should be considered a 
> > > combined limitation of the memory model and herd7.  It's not a simple 
> > > mistake that can be fixed by a small rewrite of herd7; rather it's a 
> > > deliberate choice we made based on herd7's inherent design.  We 
> > > explicitly said that control dependencies extend only to the code in the 
> > > branches of an "if" statement; anything beyond the end of the statement 
> > > is not considered to be dependent.
> > 
> > Interesting. How does this interact with loops that are conditionally broken
> > out of, e.g.  a relaxed cmpxchg() loop or an smp_cond_load_relaxed() call
> > prior to a WRITE_ONCE()?
> 
> Heh --  We finesse this issue by not supporting loops at all!  :-)

Right, so something like:

	smp_cond_load_relaxed(x, !VAL);
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);

Would be modeled like:

	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
	if (!r1)
		WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);

with an r1==0 constraint in the condition I suppose ?