Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by release-acquire and by locks

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 10:21:36AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:28:17PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Would this be allowed if smp_load_acquire() was implemented with LDAPR?
> > > If the answer is yes then we will have to remove the rfi-rel-acq and
> > > rel-rf-acq-po relations from the memory model entirely.
> > 
> > I don't understand what you mean by "rfi-rel-acq-po", and I assume you mean
> > rel-rfi-acq-po for the other? Sounds like I'm confused here.
> 
> "rfi-rel-acq" is the relation which was removed by the first of my two
> patches (it is now back in business since Paul reverted the commits),
> and "rel-rf-acq-po" is the relation that was introduced to replace it.

Sorry, yes, I realised this after I'd replied. Curious: but why do you name
the relations this way around, as opposed to e.g. rel-rfi-acq? It's
obviously up to you, but I just couldn't figure out what inspired the
ordering.

> At any rate, it looks like instead of strengthening the relation, I
> should write a patch that removes it entirely.  I also will add new,
> stronger relations for use with locking, essentially making spin_lock
> and spin_unlock be RCsc.

Thanks, Alan. I'll try to review them a bit more quickly this time, too.

Will