Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:28:45 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] refcount: provide same memory ordering guarantees as in atomic_t |
| |
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > This is forbidden. It would remain forbidden even if the smp_mb in P1 > > were replaced by a similar release/acquire pair for the same memory > > location. > > Hopefully, the LKMM does not agree with this assessment... ;-)
No, it doesn't.
> Here's a two-threads example showing that "(w)mb is _not_ rfi-rel-acq": > > C rfi-rel-acq-is-not-mb > > {} > > P0(int *x, int *y, int *a) > { > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > smp_store_release(a, 1); > r1 = smp_load_acquire(a); > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); > } > > P1(int *x, int *y) > { > int r0; > int r1; > > r0 = READ_ONCE(*y); > smp_rmb(); > r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); > } > > exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0)
Right. There is a happens-before edge between the two WRITE_ONCE calls in P0 but no cumul-fence edge, and therefore the test is allowed. Here is an example where a happens-before edge suffices to provide ordering:
P0(int *x, int *y) { WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); smp_wmb(); WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); }
P1(int *x, int *y, int *a) { int rx, ry, ra;
ry = READ_ONCE(*y); smp_store_release(a, 1); ra = smp_load_acquire(a); rx = READ_ONCE(*x); }
exists (1:rx=0 /\ 1:ry=1)
This test is forbidden, but it would be allowed if the release and acquire accessed different locations.
Alan Stern
| |