[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwKpkU5C23OYt1HCiD3X5bJHVh1jz5G2dSnF1+kVrOCTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:58:25 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing 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
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:51 PM Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> The point being that the scenarios under discussion in this thread all
> fall most definitely into the "Non-standard usage; you'd better know
> exactly what you're doing" category.
Well, yes and no.
The thing is, people expected unlock+lock to give a memory ordering.
It happened in RCU, and it's happened before elsewhere.
So it *is* the "pure locking" thing that ends up confusing people.
Yes, you have some other access that then cares about the memory
ordering, but this is a fairly natural expectation to have
(considering that we've had the same issue before).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists