On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:11:10AM -0700, tip-bot for Alan Stern wrote: > Commit-ID: 6e89e831a90172bc3d34ecbba52af5b9c4a447d1 > Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/6e89e831a90172bc3d34ecbba52af5b9c4a447d1 > Author: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > AuthorDate: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:29:17 -0700 > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > CommitDate: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:28:01 +0200 > > tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire > > More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM > should enforce ordering of writes by locking. In other words, given > the following code: > > WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); > spin_unlock(&s): > spin_lock(&s); > WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); > > the stores to x and y should be propagated in order to all other CPUs, > even though those other CPUs might not access the lock s. In terms of > the memory model, this means expanding the cumul-fence relation. Let me revive this old thread... recently we ran into the case: WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); spin_unlock(&s): spin_lock(&r); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); which is distinct from the original in that UNLOCK and LOCK are not on the same variable. I'm arguing this should still be RCtso by reason of: spin_lock() requires an atomic-acquire which: TSO-arch) implies smp_mb() ARM64) is RCsc for any stlr/ldar Power) LWSYNC Risc-V) fence r , rw *) explicitly has smp_mb() However, Boqun points out that the memory model disagrees, per: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YTI2UjKy+C7LeIf+@boqun-archlinux Is this an error/oversight of the memory model, or did I miss a subtlety somewhere?
![]() |