Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96007-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:18:46 +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
Message-ID: <ZeoFBkB1BeTdEQsn@andrea>
References: <tencent_C5266B7D6F024A916BCA7833FDEA94A74309@qq.com>
 <Zedd18wiAkK68Lzr@andrea>
 <tencent_744E0AF832049C200F96FD6582D5114D7F0A@qq.com>
 <ZeipiSVLR01jmM6b@andrea>
 <e05fa6a9-c810-46cb-b033-b91ae7a5c382@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <ZejC+lutRuwXQrMz@andrea>
 <Zenip+8BDM3p+MUh@andrea>
 <eb8f2a21-d388-424d-8504-ccd7bdb53a93@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <eb8f2a21-d388-424d-8504-ccd7bdb53a93@rowland.harvard.edu>

> So I guess you're talking about the second, intuitive meaning.  That's 
> very simple to explain.  Since every instruction executes at _some_ 
> time, and since we can safely assume that no two instructions execute at 
> exactly the _same_ time, if F doesn't execute before E then E must 
> execute before F.  Or using your terms, (not F ->xb E) implies (E ->xb 
> F).  Would that answer the original question satisfactorily?

I'd disagree with these premises: certain instructions can and do execute
at the same time.  FWIW, in the formal model, it is not that difficult to
provide examples of "(not F ->xb E) and (not E ->xb F)".


> The new text says the same thing as the original, just in a more 
> condensed way.  It skips the detailed explanation of why E must execute 
> before W propagates to E's CPU, merely saying that it is because "W is 
> coherence-later than E".  I'm not sure this is an improvement; the 
> reader might want to know exactly how this reasoning goes.

The current text relies on an argument by contradiction.  A contradiction
is reached by "forcing" (F ->xb E), hence all it can be concluded is that
(not F ->xb E).  Again, AFAICS, this doesn't match the claim in the text.

  Andrea