Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)

[Jonas Oberhauser]

On 1/23/2023 8:58 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:16:27PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > On 1/19/2023 5:41 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > > But when you're comparing grace periods or critical sections to each other,
> > > things get a little ambiguous.  Should G1 be considered to come before
> > > G2 when t1(G1) < t1(G2), when t2(G1) < t2(G2), or when t2(G1) < t1(G2)?
> > > Springing for (po ; rcu-order ; po?) amounts to choosing the second
> > > alternative.
> > Aha, I see! Powerful notation indeed.
> > Keeping that in mind, wouldn't it make sense for pb also be changed to
> > `...;po?` ?
> You mean changing the definition of pb to either:
>
> 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; po? ; [Marked]
>
> or
>
> 	prop ; strong-fence ; hb* ; [Marked] ; po? ; [Marked]

Oh no, not at all!

I mean that
    pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po ; hb* ; [Marked]
could instead be
    pb = prop ; po ; {strong ordering-operation} ; po? ; hb* ; [Marked]

(note that the po ; ... ; po part is actually folded inside the actual 
definition of strong fence).

> rcu-fence is different because rcu-order has to begin and end with
> either a grace period or a critical section, and both of these restrict
> the execution order of surrounding events:
>
> 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_unlock() then events
> 	po-before X must execute before X;
>
> 	If X is a synchronize_rcu() or rcu_read_lock() then events
> 	po-after X must execute after X.
I believe so do the strong ordering-operations in pb.
best wishes, jonas