[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180710152404.GA11437@andrea>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:24:04 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
remove it for ordinary release/acquire
> > ACQUIRE operations include LOCK operations and both smp_load_acquire()
> > and smp_cond_acquire() operations. [BTW, the latter was replaced by
> > smp_cond_load_acquire() in 1f03e8d2919270 ...]
> >
> > RELEASE operations include UNLOCK operations and smp_store_release()
> > operations. [...]
> >
> > [...] after an ACQUIRE on a given variable, all memory accesses
> > preceding any prior RELEASE on that same variable are guaranteed
> > to be visible.
>
> As far as I can see, these statements remain valid.
Interesting; ;-) What does these statement tells you ;-) when applied
to a: and b: below?
a: WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); // "preceding any prior RELEASE..."
smp_store_release(&s, 1);
smp_load_acquire(&s);
b: WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); // "after an ACQUIRE..."
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists