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

[Alan Stern]

Will:

On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Will Deacon wrote:

> 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.

I no longer remember the reason for naming "rfi-rel-acq" the way I did.  
As you say, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The reason for "rel-rf-acq-po" instead of "rel-rfi-acq-po" was because 
the second of the two patches uses that relation in a context where the 
release and the acquire might very well run on different CPUs.

Alan

> > 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