Received: by 10.223.164.202 with SMTP id h10csp4789951wrb; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbqhNJu53fhLa/kiTwsJKwms57CK9h1z/OFiWK/C/GpxkfWBDRvyHYPA49uzrpxpG6XnFBI X-Received: by 10.98.46.7 with SMTP id u7mr4129365pfu.37.1511985279027; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:54:39 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1511985278; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=w0sZ7YYdIm2flFaMHPa2y85exjQ5DXbtJJ3QAHGSfIAhGcz41MQ4Wf77xNODbCjgi+ QK8k3bZyGBWjWixaYOedAfIACj02TjUN05lhZIHnkpqz9AK/FzlQ68Vrg391/Qg+bXS4 JDFz7LH8jedVndmfsoJozzsLXUZEnVdf4+eV2mgFOXf0WylUpIHjyN57cTpI6YwskMtr PVXAuGFuovYTdMMCRhTm/GdAxqoqdTu5wh5FVpN4fLnK7kx5rwzQVx2nALVUR1Bs8yUK 0TiMYlUcHYZfMbwq13X30pqg3uz7fByJEoeN+EunsIQFIlhE2/6u2Zw99IkcEdJerHc3 f2gw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=dY/+i2yBx58dWMGaErUonLEn2uqfRTjov/WEqjEGnJs=; b=CDNRnVWTRhnX09MAMzwwfSoX/JYCCXC0gUqRNSguwrxblZU1F5BR/QJvg+RtgyTlKj cMfmYAZE6R64NghrdklUoJ9IOUdCR+arrQywA8HWkr3s05CKMNw6OEFTdWHs8+AA4hEu B8bIAzy5vwfhQQBWbzEAVfkurFOdICG7KuM7HGCCJDDzPQEYDC2IjEqpnDcOda6++xZj 2i23C/aa02D/OHz7Uvya6iz87Fs4A/HSCtqzzxYkLBRQeLl+jJ/6J+yDmSB4PjNWg8su ODq4k+xQwHvpi+5JSmKz9/XnoxiIR/Yf65xDSWhhQvOrEDCd4MrEbakTGonDfCONpell MxAA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=harvard.edu Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 3si1734437plm.768.2017.11.29.11.54.25; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:54:38 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=harvard.edu Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752473AbdK2TxK (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:53:10 -0500 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:40584 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751806AbdK2TxI (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:53:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 7145 invoked by uid 2102); 29 Nov 2017 14:53:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Nov 2017 14:53:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:53:06 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: Peter Zijlstra cc: Daniel Lustig , "Paul E. McKenney" , Andrea Parri , Luc Maranget , Jade Alglave , Boqun Feng , Nicholas Piggin , Will Deacon , David Howells , Palmer Dabbelt , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Unlock-lock questions and the Linux Kernel Memory Model In-Reply-To: <20171129194602.6zmjj7z5ih4ri25h@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:04:53AM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote: > > > While we're here, let me ask about another test which isn't directly > > about unlock/lock but which is still somewhat related to this > > discussion: > > > > "MP+wmb+xchg-acq" (or some such) > > > > {} > > > > P0(int *x, int *y) > > { > > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > > smp_wmb(); > > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); > > } > > > > P1(int *x, int *y) > > { > > r1 = atomic_xchg_relaxed(y, 2); > > r2 = smp_load_acquire(y); > > r3 = READ_ONCE(*x); > > } > > > > exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=2 /\ 1:r3=0) > > > > C/C++ would call the atomic_xchg_relaxed part of a release sequence > > and hence would forbid this outcome. > > That's just weird. Either its _relaxed, or its _release. Making _relaxed > mean _release is just daft. The C11 memory model specifically allows atomic operations to be interspersed within a release sequence. But it doesn't say why. Alan From 1585431095252327301@xxx Wed Nov 29 19:48:35 +0000 2017 X-GM-THRID: 1585255508732072548 X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread