Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-170331-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 15:21:54 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>,
  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
  kernel-team@meta.com, mingo@kernel.org, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
  will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
  npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
  luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com,
  Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
  Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
  Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
  linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-model 2/4] Documentation/litmus-tests: Demonstrate
 unordered failing cmpxchg
Message-ID: <c168f56f-dfae-4cac-bc61-fc5a93ee3aed@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <42a43181-a431-44bd-8aff-6b305f8111ba@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240501232132.1785861-2-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <c97f0529-5a8f-4a82-8e14-0078d4372bdc@huaweicloud.com>
 <16381d02-cb70-4ae5-b24e-aa73afad9aed@huaweicloud.com>
 <2a695f63-6c9a-4837-ac03-f0a5c63daaaf@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2a695f63-6c9a-4837-ac03-f0a5c63daaaf@paulmck-laptop>

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:00:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 06:30:45PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > Am 5/6/2024 um 12:05 PM schrieb Jonas Oberhauser:
> > > Am 5/2/2024 um 1:21 AM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> > > > This commit adds four litmus tests showing that a failing cmpxchg()
> > > > operation is unordered unless followed by an smp_mb__after_atomic()
> > > > operation.
> > > 
> > > So far, my understanding was that all RMW operations without suffix
> > > (xchg(), cmpxchg(), ...) will be interpreted as F[Mb];...;F[Mb].

It's more accurate to say that RMW operations without a suffix that 
return a value will be interpreted that way.  So for example, 
atomic_inc() doesn't imply any ordering, because it doesn't return a 
value.

> > > barriers explicitly inside the cat model, instead of relying on implicit
> > > conversions internal to herd.

Don't the annotations in linux-kernel.def and linux-kernel.bell (like 
"noreturn") already make this explicit?  

I guess the part that is still implicit is that herd7 doesn't regard 
failed RMW operations as actual RMWs (they don't have a store part).

Alan