Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 05:48:12 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com, will@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, 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
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: "Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak Memory
 Models"
Message-ID: <20220826124812.GA3007435@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello!

I have not yet done more than glance at this one, but figured I should
send it along sooner rather than later.

"Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak
Memory Models", Antonio Paolillo, Hern?n Ponce-de-Le?n, Thomas
Haas, Diogo Behrens, Rafael Chehab, Ming Fu, and Roland Meyer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15240

The claim is that the queued spinlocks implementation with CNA violates
LKMM but actually works on all architectures having a formal hardware
memory model.

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul