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:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 04:33:23 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     stern@rowland.harvard.edu, 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,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak
 Memory Models"
Message-ID: <YwwlWMmHxD7OPERD@anparri>
References: <20220826124812.GA3007435@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220826124812.GA3007435@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 05:48:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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?

Section 4 ends with a discussion about certain "spurious" data races.
Do we have litmus tests with them?  (I could repro with Dartagnan...)

Thanks,
  Andrea