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:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:12:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Dan Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        paul.walmsley@sifive.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for
 locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
Message-ID: <20210910171221.GN4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <YTiXyiA92dM9726M@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YTiiC1mxzHyUJ47F@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210908144217.GA603644@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <CAHk-=wiXJygbW+_1BdSX6M8j6z4w8gRSHVcaD5saihaNJApnoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YTm26u9i3hpjrNpr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210909133535.GA9722@willie-the-truck>
 <5412ab37-2979-5717-4951-6a61366df0f2@nvidia.com>
 <20210909180005.GA2230712@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <YTtpnZuSId9yDUjB@boqun-archlinux>
 <20210910163632.GC39858@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210910163632.GC39858@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:36:32PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> +Here the second spin_lock() is po-after the first spin_unlock(), and
> +therefore the load of x must execute before the load of y, even tbough

I think that's commonly spelled: though, right?                    ^^^^^^