lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)
> > Why do you want the implementation to forbid it?  The pattern of the 
> > litmus test resembles 3+3W, and you don't care whether the kernel allows
> > that pattern. Do you?
>
> Jonas asked a similar question, so I am answering you both here.
>
> With (say) a release-WRITE_ONCE() chain implementing N+2W for some
> N, it is reasonably well known that you don't get ordering, hardware
> support otwithstanding. After all, none of the Linux kernel, C, and C++
> memory models make that guarantee. In addition, the non-RCU barriers
> and accesses that you can use to create N+2W have been in very wide use
> for a very long time.
>
> Although RCU has been in use for almost as long as those non-RCU barriers,
> it has not been in wide use for anywhere near that long. So I cannot
> be so confident in ruling out some N+2W use case for RCU.

Did some archeology... the pattern, with either RCU sync plus a release
or with two full fences plus a release, was forbidden by "ancient LKMM":
the relevant changes were described in

https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/LWNLinuxMM/WeakModel.html#Coherence%20Point%20and%20RCU

Andrea

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:55    [W:0.122 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site