[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y4kMskpQGOvlPyYf@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 15:21:06 -0500
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>
Cc: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"parri.andrea@...il.com" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"j.alglave@....ac.uk" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
"luc.maranget@...ia.fr" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"akiyks@...il.com" <akiyks@...il.com>,
"dlustig@...dia.com" <dlustig@...dia.com>,
"joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"urezki@...il.com" <urezki@...il.com>,
"quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
"frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry
dependencies
On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 05:21:45PM +0000, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the helpful and detailed comments!
> Three minor points before I send a new patch:
>
> > even if W' or R' (or both!) is plain.
>
> The "is" sounds slightly weird to me in the sentence because the last part I read is
> "(or both!)", so I would slightly prefer "are" here.
People are pretty casual about subject-verb number agreement these days
(there's a growing tendency in English for people to make the verb agree
with the last noun occurring in the subject rather than the subject as a
whole), so that should be okay.
> > On the other hand, if you change the second "dependencies" to "ones" and "unmarked" to "plain", maybe the whole thing will fit on one line.
>
> It fits even if I changed the second dependencies to "those" instead of "ones", i.e.,
> (* Redefine dependencies to include those carried through plain accesses *)
>
> which I would prefer.
Fine.
> > if you replaced the whole conditional with a simple
> > WRITE_ONCE(*y, *z2);
> > then the litmus test would become an example of OOTA!
>
> In my opinion it is already an example of OOTA, which I would define as an
> rfi | ctrl | addr | data | fence
> cycle.
That's not an unreasonable point of view (if you put rfe rather than
rfi), but to me OOTA suggests something more: a value arising as if by
magic rather than as a result of a computation. In your version of the
litmus test there is WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1), so it's a little understandable
that you could end up with 1 as the final values of x and y. But in my
version, no values get computed anywhere, so the final value of x and y
might just as easily be 1 or 56789 -- it literally arises "out of thin
air".
> Let me know if you agree with these deviations from your suggestion
> and have a great time,
Yes; with those changes you can add:
Reviewed-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> jonas
>
> PS:
> > When a colon is followed by a clause (as opposed to a list), it is customary to capitalize the first letter of that clause, just like we capitalize the first letter at the start of a sentence.
>
> In German, we also capitalize after a colon; but my English teachers used to deduct many points throughout my adolescent life whenever I capitalized like that. I still remember some of that red ink with near perfect clarity. So I eventually really took it to heart and started pedantically not-capitalizing after every colon.
> Now the only time it ever mattered in my adult life, I find that I should do it German Style (or, as I just learned, APA & AP Style).
> I suppose life is that way sometimes.
Indeed.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists