On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:26:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> > > if necessary, but let us not encourage people to rely on this thing.
> > >
> > > For example, the following "exists" clause can be satisfied with this
> > > change:
> > >
> > > C dep-rfi
> > >
> > > { }
> > >
> > > P0(int *x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > > smp_store_release(y, 1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > P1(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> > > {
> > > int r0;
> > > int r1;
> > > int r2;
> > >
> > > r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > > WRITE_ONCE(*z, r0);
> > > r1 = smp_load_acquire(z);
> > > r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > > }
> > >
> > > exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r2=0)
> >
> > Any objections? If I don't hear any in a couple days, I will apply this.
>
> IIUC you cannot build hardware that allows the above, so why would we
> allow it?
Agreed. Maybe the intention was to make the dependency between the read of
*y and the write of *z on P1 a control dependency instead? That's certainly
allowed on arm64.
Will
