On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:57:00AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > 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. No no, I did mean dep (= addr | data). As you remarked, control dep. aren't going to work here. I expanded on this in my reply to peterz. Andrea > > Will