Message-ID: <f9f7a9b0-23c8-587f-61a9-ca4b0950ad1b@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 22:10:32 +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:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 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: <Y9BdNVk2LQiUYABS@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230124225449.GY2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y9CL8LBz+/mbbD00@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230125022019.GB2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <cedf3a39-12cd-1cb1-ad5a-7c10768cee40@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230125150520.GG2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y9FMEATzv3gcTUe2@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230125171832.GH2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y9F+SyLpxHwdK0rE@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230125194651.GN2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y9GSuzHFdRfLeAAp@andrea>
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y9GSuzHFdRfLeAAp@andrea>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 1/25/2023 9:36 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>> Why do you want the implementation to forbid it?  The pattern of the
>>> litmus test resembles 3+3W, and you don't care whether the kernel allows
>>> that pattern.  Do you?
>> Jonas asked a similar question, so I am answering you both here.
>>
>> With (say) a release-WRITE_ONCE() chain implementing N+2W for some
>> N, it is reasonably well known that you don't get ordering, hardware
>> support otwithstanding.  After all, none of the Linux kernel, C, and C++
>> memory models make that guarantee.  In addition, the non-RCU barriers
>> and accesses that you can use to create N+2W have been in very wide use
>> for a very long time.
>>
>> Although RCU has been in use for almost as long as those non-RCU barriers,
>> it has not been in wide use for anywhere near that long.  So I cannot
>> be so confident in ruling out some N+2W use case for RCU.
> Did some archeology...  the pattern, with either RCU sync plus a release
> or with two full fences plus a release, was forbidden by "ancient LKMM":
> the relevant changes were described in
>
>    https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/LWNLinuxMM/WeakModel.html#Coherence%20Point%20and%20RCU
>
>    Andrea

Fascinating! It says there "But the weak model allows it, as required" 
-- what does "as required" mean? Just "as required by dropping the 
constraint"?

Is there still a notion of "strong model" and "weak model", or was the 
strong model dropped?

jonas