Hi Andrii, Thanks for looking into this. > I'd like to get to this in next few days, but meanwhile have you tried > to benchmark what are the implications of stricter memory ordering > changes on libbpf side? Do you have example changes you were thinking > about for libbpf side? I can try benchmarking it on my side as well. I don't have a benchmark yet. I'll try to prepare a benchmark when I have time to do so. The proposed change to libbpf is simply to replace the two smp_store_release with smp_store_mb. I just realized that the Linux kernel memory model doesn't have direct mappings to seq_cst loads and stores though, so this will lead to a redundant barrier on AArch64 etc. Regards, Tatsuyuki
