Am 10/24/2024 um 2:11 PM schrieb Puranjay Mohan:
Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Am 10/23/2024 um 7:47 PM schrieb Andrea Parri:
Hi Puranjay and Paul,
These remarks show that the proposed BPF formalization of acquire and
release somehow, but substantially, diverged from the corresponding
LKMM formalization. My guess is that the divergences mentioned above
were not (fully) intentional, or I'm wondering -- why not follow the
latter (the LKMM's) more closely? - This is probably the first question
I would need to clarify before trying/suggesting modifications to the
present formalizations. ;-) Thoughts?
I'm also curious why the formalization (not just in the semantics but
also how it is structured) is so completely different from LKMM's.
Thanks Puranjay for your response!
> BPF memory model is an instruction level memory model
You mean BPF has no optimizing byte code compiler?
Is it guaranteed to stay this way?
WASM does JIT optimizations as far as I know, which would bring back a
lot of the complexity of software models like LKMM.
> much simpler than LKMM
LKMM has a simple core, roughly like this:
ppo = ... (* all the ppo related rules that are relevant to you -- some
fences don't matter and you can just remove them *)
prop = (coe | fre) (* remove reflexive closure *) ; ...
hb = [Marked] ; (ppo | rfe | prop & int | prop ; strong-sync) ; [Marked]
acyclic hb
(* ... also add the atomicity & sc-per-loc axioms *)
If you can exclude compiler optimizations, you can remove the Marked bits.
Best wishes,
jonas
