[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] docs/lkmm: Correct ->prop example with additional rfe link
Hi Joel,

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 08:00:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This lkmm example should describe an additional rfe link between P1's
> store to y and P2's load of y, which should be critical to establishing
> the ordering resulting in the ->prop ordering on P0. IOW, there are 2 rfe
> links, not one.
> Correct these in the docs to make the ->prop ordering in P0 more clear.
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <>
> ---
> tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt | 16 +++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> index 68caa9a976d0..6c0dfaac7f04 100644
> --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> @@ -1302,8 +1302,8 @@ followed by an arbitrary number of cumul-fence links, ending with an
> rfe link. You can concoct more exotic examples, containing more than
> one fence, although this quickly leads to diminishing returns in terms
> of complexity. For instance, here's an example containing a coe link
> -followed by two fences and an rfe link, utilizing the fact that
> -release fences are A-cumulative:
> +followed by a fence, an rfe link, another fence and and a final rfe link,
> +utilizing the fact that release fences are A-cumulative:

This part looks good to me.

> int x, y, z;
> @@ -1334,11 +1334,13 @@ If x = 2, r0 = 1, and r2 = 1 after this code runs then there is a prop
> link from P0's store to its load. This is because P0's store gets
> overwritten by P1's store since x = 2 at the end (a coe link), the
> smp_wmb() ensures that P1's store to x propagates to P2 before the
> -store to y does (the first fence), the store to y propagates to P2
> -before P2's load and store execute, P2's smp_store_release()
> -guarantees that the stores to x and y both propagate to P0 before the
> -store to z does (the second fence), and P0's load executes after the
> -store to z has propagated to P0 (an rfe link).
> +store to y does (the first fence), P2's store to y happens before P2's
> +load of y (rfe link), P2's smp_store_release() ensures that P2's load
> +of y executes before P2's store of z (second fence), which also would
> +imply that stores to x and y happen before the smp_store_release(), which

I think it's more accurate to say:

"imply that stores to x and y progagates to P2 before the

, because by definition the propagation ordering that
smp_store_release() guarantees only works with stores that already
propagated to the CPU executing it, not the stores that execute/happen

With that, feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <>


> +means that P2's smp_store_release() will propagate stores to x and y to all
> +CPUs before the store to z does (A-cumulative property of this fence).
> +Finally P0's load executes after store to z has propagated to P0 (rfe link).
> In summary, the fact that the hb relation links memory access events
> in the order they execute means that it must not have cycles. This
> --
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-28 04:11    [W:0.026 / U:38.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site