Re: [PATCH v3] tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 05:50:15PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > So I don't see this as a valid argument for not using rw-xbstar in
> > rw-race.  Even theoretically.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with using rw-xbstar in rw-race, especially in current
> LKMM, and I'm not arguing against that.
> 
> I'm saying that the argument
> "if rw-xbstar links a read R to a plain write W, and that plain write is
> replaced by a read R', and in case R' reads a value different from W,
> followed by a store W' (with some dependency from R' to W')  by the
> compiler, then the fact that R and R' can't have a data race means that it's
> safe to use rw-xbstar in rw-race"
> is incomplete. (Of course that doesn't mean the claim is wrong.)
> To make the argument complete, you also need that W' is generated if
> necessary, and more crucially that W' is still ordered behind R!
> Otherwise you would now have a data race between R and W', like in the
> hypothetical example I mentioned, even though R and R' don't race.
> 
> And if you do that second step in LKMM (even with the change of
> w-pre-bounded we are discussing) you quickly find that W' is indeed still
> ordered, so rw-xbstar is perfectly fine.
> 
> Perhaps that step is so trivial to you that you don't feel it needs
> mentioning : ) But speaking about LKMM-like models in general, some might
> have some subtle case where rw-xbstar links R and W but would not R and W'.

Ah, okay.  Yes, it is a subtle point.  And by the reasoning I just used, 
if such a case did exist then one could conclude it would be an example 
demonstrating that rw-xbstar should not have linked R and W in the first 
place.

And it looks like I should write up and submit a patch allowing more 
dependencies in the definition of w-pre-bounded.

Alan