Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)

[Jonas Oberhauser]

On 1/23/2023 9:41 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:06:54PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > On 1/23/2023 8:58 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:16:27PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > > On 1/19/2023 5:41 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But when you're comparing grace periods or critical sections to each other,
> > > > > things get a little ambiguous.  Should G1 be considered to come before
> > > > > G2 when t1(G1) < t1(G2), when t2(G1) < t2(G2), or when t2(G1) < t1(G2)?
> > > > > Springing for (po ; rcu-order ; po?) amounts to choosing the second
> > > > > alternative.
> > > > Aha, I see! Powerful notation indeed.
> > > > Keeping that in mind, wouldn't it make sense for pb also be changed to
> > > > `...;po?` ?
> > > You mean changing the definition of pb to either:
> > >
> > > 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; po? ; [Marked]
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; [Marked] ; po? ; [Marked]
> > Oh no, not at all!
> >
> > I mean that
> >      pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po ; hb* ; [Marked]
> > could instead be
> >      pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po? ; hb* ; [Marked]
> >
> > (note that the po ; ... ; po part is actually folded inside the actual
> > definition of strong fence).
> This goes back to the original herd models, before the LKMM came about:
> The fencerel() macro uses po on both sides.  I believe the motivating
> idea back then was that ordering should apply only to memory accesses
> (which can in practice be observed), not to other types of events such
> as memory barriers.
I see. I believe this argument no longer strictly holds, now that rcu-gp 
needs to be ordered in some cases.

> > > rcu-fence is different because rcu-order has to begin and end with
> > > either a grace period or a critical section, and both of these restrict
> > > the execution order of surrounding events:
> > >
> > > 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_unlock() then events
> > > 	po-before X must execute before X;
> > >
> > > 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_lock() then events
> > > 	po-after X must execute after X.
> > I believe so do the strong ordering-operations in pb.
> But the beginning and end of a pb link (for example, overwrite and hb)
> don't need to be strong-ordering operations.
Of course, but I'm not suggesting to put a po? at those locations.

have fun, jonas