lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po
From


On 1/23/2023 9:25 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 07:25:48PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
>> Alright, after some synchronization in the other parts of this thread I am
>> beginning to prepare the next iteration of the patch.
>>
>> On 1/19/2023 4:13 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:38:11PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2023 8:52 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:31:59PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
>>>>>> - ([M] ; po? ; [LKW] ; fencerel(After-spinlock) ; [M]) |
>>>>>> - ([M] ; po ; [UL] ; (co | po) ; [LKW] ;
>>>>>> - fencerel(After-unlock-lock) ; [M])
>>>>>> + ([M] ; po? ; [LKW] ; fencerel(After-spinlock) ; [M])
>>>>> Shouldn't the po case of (co | po) remain intact here?
>>>> You can leave it here, but it is already covered by two other parts: the
>>>> ordering given through ppo/hb is covered by the po-unlock-lock-po & int in
>>>> ppo, and the ordering given through pb is covered by its inclusion in
>>>> strong-order.
>>> What about the ordering given through
>>> A-cumul(strong-fence)/cumul-fence/prop/hb? I suppose that might be
>>> superseded by pb as well, but it seems odd not to have it in hb.
>> How should we resolve this?
>> My current favorite (compromise :D) solution would be to
>> 1. still eliminate both po and co cases from first definition of
>> strong-fence which is used in ppo,
>> 2. define a relation equal to the strong-order in this patch (with po|rf)
> Wouldn't it need to have po|co? Consider:
>
> Wx=1 Rx=1 Ry=1 Rz=1
> lock(s) lock(s) lock(s)
> unlock(s) unlock(s) unlock(s)
> Wy=1 Wz=1 smp_mb__after_unlock_lock
> Rx=0
>
> With the co term this is forbidden. With only the rf term it is
> allowed, because po-unlock-lock-po isn't A-cumulative.
No, but unlock() is (
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/tree/tools/memory-model/lock.cat?h=dev.2023.01.19a#n67
). So you get

  Rx=0 ->overwrite Wx=1  ->rfe Rx1 ->po-rel  T1:unlock(s) ->rfe
T2:lock(s) ->po-unlock-lock-po;after ... fence;po Rx=0
which is
  Rx=0          ->prop ;                          
po-unlock-lock-po;after ... fence;po Rx=0

Are you ok going forward like this then?

If not, I might prefer to redefine po-unlock-lock-po into something that
works for all its use cases if possible. I think
|

po ; [UL] ; (po|co?;rf) ; [LKR] ; po

|might be such a definition but haven't fully thought about it.

best wishes, jonas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:54    [W:0.072 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site