Message-ID: <dd15019c-f66f-44ff-59cd-f937c1b9e0f6@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:21:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>,
        "paulmck@kernel.org" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "parri.andrea" <parri.andrea@gmail.com>, will <will@kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, npiggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, joel <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220921173109.GA1214281@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <YytfFiMT2Xsdwowf@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <YywXuzZ/922LHfjI@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <114ECED5-FED1-4361-94F7-8D9BC02449B7> <Y87w5KHZ2UP2aLLG@rowland.harvard.edu>
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y87w5KHZ2UP2aLLG@rowland.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 1/23/2023 9:41 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:06:54PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
>>
>> On 1/23/2023 8:58 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:16:27PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2023 5:41 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But when you're comparing grace periods or critical sections to each other,
>>>>> things get a little ambiguous.  Should G1 be considered to come before
>>>>> G2 when t1(G1) < t1(G2), when t2(G1) < t2(G2), or when t2(G1) < t1(G2)?
>>>>> Springing for (po ; rcu-order ; po?) amounts to choosing the second
>>>>> alternative.
>>>> Aha, I see! Powerful notation indeed.
>>>> Keeping that in mind, wouldn't it make sense for pb also be changed to
>>>> `...;po?` ?
>>> You mean changing the definition of pb to either:
>>>
>>> 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; po? ; [Marked]
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; [Marked] ; po? ; [Marked]
>> Oh no, not at all!
>>
>> I mean that
>>      pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po ; hb* ; [Marked]
>> could instead be
>>      pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po? ; hb* ; [Marked]
>>
>> (note that the po ; ... ; po part is actually folded inside the actual
>> definition of strong fence).
> This goes back to the original herd models, before the LKMM came about:
> The fencerel() macro uses po on both sides.  I believe the motivating
> idea back then was that ordering should apply only to memory accesses
> (which can in practice be observed), not to other types of events such
> as memory barriers.
I see. I believe this argument no longer strictly holds, now that rcu-gp 
needs to be ordered in some cases.

>>> rcu-fence is different because rcu-order has to begin and end with
>>> either a grace period or a critical section, and both of these restrict
>>> the execution order of surrounding events:
>>>
>>> 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_unlock() then events
>>> 	po-before X must execute before X;
>>>
>>> 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_lock() then events
>>> 	po-after X must execute after X.
>>>
>> I believe so do the strong ordering-operations in pb.
> But the beginning and end of a pb link (for example, overwrite and hb)
> don't need to be strong-ordering operations.
Of course, but I'm not suggesting to put a po? at those locations.

have fun, jonas