Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187788-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 18:35:52 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Hernan Ponce de Leon <hernan.poncedeleon@huaweicloud.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@meta.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
	luc.maranget@inria.fr, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: LKMM: Making RMW barriers explicit
Message-ID: <Zk9waJNBwifS/Ops@andrea>
References: <72c804c8-2511-4349-a823-bc1de8bb729e@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <e030f7a4-97e7-4e91-bbae-230ee5c97763@huaweicloud.com>
 <a9bf972c-b5ee-f1c2-36bf-30ba62f419d7@huaweicloud.com>
 <2f20e7cf-7c67-4ad3-8a0c-3c1d01257ae4@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <0c309dd3-f8c1-4945-b8f1-154b2a775216@huaweicloud.com>
 <4286e5b2-5954-4c77-a815-c1c2735d9509@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <58042cf3-e515-4e5f-ab48-1d0d6123c9e9@huaweicloud.com>
 <6174fd09-b287-49ae-b117-c3a36ef3800a@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <Zk4jQe7Vq3N2Vip0@andrea>
 <73e08b17-cb2a-4e14-a94f-7144c5738684@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <73e08b17-cb2a-4e14-a94f-7144c5738684@huaweicloud.com>

> I would phrase it more extreme: I want to get rid of the unnecessary
> non-standard parts of the herd representation.

Please indulge the thought that what might appear to be "non-standard"
to one or one's community might appear differently to others.

Continuing with the example above, I'm pretty sure your "standard" and
simple idea of mb-reads and mb-writes, or even "unsuccessful" mb-reads
will turn up the nose of many kernel developers...  The current repre-
sentation for xchg() was described in the ASPLOS'18 work and it's been
used (& tested) upstream since the LKMM was first merged ~6 years ago.

But that's not the point, "standards" can change and certainly kernels
and tools do.  My remark was more to point out that you're not getting
rid of anything..., you're simply proposing a different representation
(asking kernel developers & maintainers to "deal with it"): here's why
I was and I am looking forward to something more than "because we can".

  Andrea