[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8cbda122-6aa3-365b-fd09-52dca0644cbd@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:10:06 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory-model: fix cheat sheet typo
On 10/04/2018 22:32, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:42:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 06:50:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> "RWM" should be "RMW", and that's more or less the extent to which I
>>> can claim to change the document. :) In particular, "Self" is not
>>> documented and the difference between "Self" and "SV" is not clear
>>> to me.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
>>
>> Applied, though without the questions. ;-)
>>
>> "Self" is for things like smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release()
>> that order themselves against later and earlier accesses, respectively.
>> This ordering applies to later/earlier access to all variables, not
>> just the one that smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() accessed.
>> In contrast, things like smp_mb() order only other accesses, not
>> themselves. Or at least it is impossible to proves whether or not they
>> order themselves because they are not separately visible to other CPUs.
>>
>> "SV" is "same variable", which applies to pretty much anything that
>> accesses a variable, but not to things like smp_mb() which do not.
>>
>> Does that help?
>
> On the perhaps naive assumption that silence means assent, how about
> the following patch?
Silence meant "I tried thinking of a patch myself, and hadn't come up
yet with a fully satisfactory one"; that's some kind of assent I guess. :)
Your patch is certainly an improvement!
Thanks,
Paolo
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit 818e46e8db6cacb099b8640b7f2945a3151c00ab
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Tue Apr 10 13:24:19 2018 -0700
>
> tools/memory-order: Improve key for SELF and SV
>
> The key for "SELF" was missing completely and the key for "SV" was
> a bit obtuse. This commit therefore adds a key for "SELF" and improves
> the one for "SV".
>
> Reported-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt
> index c0eafdaddfa4..d502993ac7d2 100644
> --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt
> @@ -26,4 +26,5 @@ Key: C: Ordering is cumulative
> DR: Dependent read (address dependency)
> DW: Dependent write (address, data, or control dependency)
> RMW: Atomic read-modify-write operation
> - SV Same-variable access
> + SELF: Orders self, as opposed to accesses both before and after
> + SV: Orders later accesses to the same variable
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists