On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 4:41 PM Hernan Luis Ponce de Leon <hernanl.leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > You were quoting Jonas here, right? The email doesn't make this obvious > > because it doesn't have two levels of "> > " markings. > > Yes, I was quoting Jonas. > It seems my mail client did not format the email correctly and I did not notice. > Sorry for that. > > > In general, _no_ two distinct relations in the LKMM have the same propagation > > properties. If wmb always behaved the same way as mb, we wouldn't use two > > separate words for them. > > I understand that relations with different names are intended to be different. > What I meant was > "wmb gives weaker propagation guarantees than mb and because of this, liveness of qspinlock is not guaranteed in LKMM" > I wonder if this sort of liveness guarantee (or lack thereof) is really a problem in practice, where writes will eventually propagate even though they may not for a bit. Is it possible to write a liveness test case on any hardware, or is this more in the realms of theory? Either way, quite intriguing! Thanks, - Joel
