Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-94795-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <tencent_D464912F65C02D326F594D667FDDC234EB06@qq.com>
Sender: kenneth-lee-2012@foxmail.com
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 08:45:32 +0800
From: Kenneth-Lee-2012@foxmail.com
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	paulmck@kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about PB rule of LKMM
References: <tencent_C5266B7D6F024A916BCA7833FDEA94A74309@qq.com>
 <Zedd18wiAkK68Lzr@andrea>
 <tencent_744E0AF832049C200F96FD6582D5114D7F0A@qq.com>
 <ZeipiSVLR01jmM6b@andrea>
 <e05fa6a9-c810-46cb-b033-b91ae7a5c382@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <ZejC+lutRuwXQrMz@andrea>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZejC+lutRuwXQrMz@andrea>

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 08:24:42PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 20:24:42 +0100
> From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
> To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Cc: Kenneth-Lee-2012@foxmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
>  paulmck@kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Question about PB rule of LKMM
> 
> > Later on, the file includes this paragraph, which answers the question 
> > you were asking:
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The existence of a pb link from E to F implies that E must execute
> > before F.  To see why, suppose that F executed first.  Then W would
> > have propagated to E's CPU before E executed.  If E was a store, the
> > memory subsystem would then be forced to make E come after W in the
> > coherence order, contradicting the fact that E ->coe W.  If E was a
> > load, the memory subsystem would then be forced to satisfy E's read
> > request with the value stored by W or an even later store,
> > contradicting the fact that E ->fre W.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> TBF, that just explains (not F ->xb E), or I guess that was the origin
> of the question.

Yes. I thought a link was just an unconditional pattern for the
programmer to match the actual code so the other categories (of links in
the same acyclic rule) cannot route back. But now I understand the ->xx*
relation in the begining or end of the link can also add xx to the rule.

> 
>   Andrea

-- 
			-Kenneth Lee