[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201005151639.GE376584@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 11:16:39 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, parri.andrea@...il.com,
peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
akiyks@...il.com, dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:13:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > The failure to recognize the dependency in P0 should be considered a
> > combined limitation of the memory model and herd7. It's not a simple
> > mistake that can be fixed by a small rewrite of herd7; rather it's a
> > deliberate choice we made based on herd7's inherent design. We
> > explicitly said that control dependencies extend only to the code in the
> > branches of an "if" statement; anything beyond the end of the statement
> > is not considered to be dependent.
>
> Interesting. How does this interact with loops that are conditionally broken
> out of, e.g. a relaxed cmpxchg() loop or an smp_cond_load_relaxed() call
> prior to a WRITE_ONCE()?
Heh -- We finesse this issue by not supporting loops at all! :-)
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists