[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <79b55c10-dd06-4947-8545-20ffeb324bc6@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 09:37:40 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: Hernan Ponce de Leon <hernan.poncedeleon@...weicloud.com>,
will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
luc.maranget@...ia.fr, paulmck@...nel.org, akiyks@...il.com,
dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Document herd7 (internal)
representation
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 03:28:00PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > + | smp_store_mb | W[once] ->po F[mb] |
> >
> > I expect this one to be hard-coded in herd7 source code, but I cannot find
> > it. Can you give me a pointer?
>
> smp_store_mb() is currently mapped to { __store{once}(X,V); __fence{mb}; } in
> the .def file, so it's semantically equivalent to "WRITE_ONCE(); smp_mb();".
Why don't we use this approach for all the value-returning full-barrier
RMW operations? That would immediately solve the issue of the
special-purpose code in herd7, leaving only the matter of how to
annotate failed RMW operations.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists