lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Daniel Lustig wrote:

> > --- usb-4.x.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > +++ usb-4.x/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ let strong-fence = mb | gp
> > (* Release Acquire *)
> > let acq-po = [Acquire] ; po ; [M]
> > let po-rel = [M] ; po ; [Release]
> > -let rfi-rel-acq = [Release] ; rfi ; [Acquire]
> > +let unlock-rf-lock-po = [UL] ; rf ; [LKR] ; po
>
> It feels slightly weird that unlock-rf-lock-po is asymmetrical. And in
> fact, I think the current RISC-V solution we've been discussing (namely,
> putting a fence.tso instead of a fence rw,w in front of the release)
> may not even technically respect that particular sequence. The
> fence.tso solution really enforces "po; [UL]; rf; [LKR]", right?
>
> Does something like "po; [UL]; rf; [LKR]; po" fit in with the rest
> of the model? If so, maybe that solves the asymmetry and also
> legalizes the approach of putting fence.tso in front?

That would work just as well. For this version of the patch it
doesn't make any difference, because nothing that comes po-after the
LKR is able to directly read the value stored by the UL.

Alan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-10 20:19    [W:0.215 / U:4.836 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site