Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96072-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:08:46 +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: <ZeoQvj3l6moF9KdQ@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>
 <ZeoFBkB1BeTdEQsn@andrea>
 <bde188b0-1c5b-4b3b-94de-395a52fc37ce@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bde188b0-1c5b-4b3b-94de-395a52fc37ce@rowland.harvard.edu>

> > I'd disagree with these premises: certain instructions can and do execute
> > at the same time.
> 
> Can you give an example?

I think I'm starting to see where this is going..., but to address the
question: really any example where the LKMM doesn't know better, say

C test

{}

P0(int *x)
{
	*x = 1;
}

P1(int *x)
{
	*x = 2;
}


> >  FWIW, in the formal model, it is not that difficult to
> > provide examples of "(not F ->xb E) and (not E ->xb F)".
> 
> That's because the xb relation in the formal model does not fully 
> capture our intuitive notion of "executes at the same time" in the 
> informal operational model.
> 
> Also, it's important to distinguish between:
> 
> (1)	Two instructions that are forced (say by a dependency) or known 
> 	(say by an rfe link) to execute in a particular order; versus
> 
> (2)	Two instructions that may execute in either order but do execute
> 	in some particular order during a given run of the program.
> 
> The formal xb relation corresponds more to (1), whereas the informal 
> notion corresponds more to (2).

This appears to be the key observation.  For if, in the operational model,
(not F ->xb E) implies (E ->xb F) then I'll apologize for the noise.  :-)


> > > 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.
> 
> That's why I suggested adding an extra sentence to the paragraph (which 
> you did not quote in your reply).  That sentence gave a direct argument.

Well, I read that sentence but stopped at "These contradictions show that"
for the reason I detailed above.

  Andrea