On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:12:11PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 06:02:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > Thanks for having a go at this. I tried defining something axiomatically, > > but got stuck pretty quickly. In my scheme, I used "data-directed > > transitivity" instead of "local transitivity", since the latter seems to > > be a bit of a misnomer. > > I figured that "local" meant local to the CPUs participating in the > release-acquire chain. As opposed to smp_mb() chains where the ordering > is "global" as in visible to all CPUs, whether on the chain or not. > Does that help? That is in fact how I read and understood it.
