From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Akira Yokosawa Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 00:04:14 +0900 Message-ID: References: <20180904081144.GA4137@andrea> <20180905072151.GA3185@andrea> <50f0a7a7-0521-f833-34c3-132ce57dd777@gmail.com> <20180905150042.GA8820@andrea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180905150042.GA8820@andrea> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrea Parri Cc: Alan Stern , Will Deacon , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 2018/09/06 0:00, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:33:08PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On 2018/09/05 09:21:51 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote: >>>>> Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-) That was >>>>> indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending >>>>> issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as: >>>>> >>>>> "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that >>>>> the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking." >>>>> >>>>> particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather >>>>> than by opinions). In fact, you can take the following as my only >>>>> current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]: >>>>> >>>>> THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO >>>>> SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES >>>> >>>> Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for >>>> improvements to the patch description? Earlier in your message you >>>> mentioned that Will's comment: >>>> >>>> LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon >>>> in the codebase. >>>> >>>> would make a good addition. Suitably edited, it could be added to the >>>> description. I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to >>>> hear your thoughts. Anything else? >>> >>> Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming >>> text in emails/replies are too aggressive... >> >> Andrea, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added? > > Indeed (examples in the trimmed text). So, you mean just amending commit log does not work for you? > > >> I don't think you do, but want to make sure. >> >> I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the >> commit log... > > Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument... This thread is getting quite hard for me to follow... Akira > > Andrea > > >> >> Akira >> >>> >>> Andrea >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >> From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f195.google.com ([209.85.215.195]:34111 "EHLO mail-pg1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726046AbeIETe4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:34:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC LKMM 1/7] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire References: <20180904081144.GA4137@andrea> <20180905072151.GA3185@andrea> <50f0a7a7-0521-f833-34c3-132ce57dd777@gmail.com> <20180905150042.GA8820@andrea> From: Akira Yokosawa Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 00:04:14 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180905150042.GA8820@andrea> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrea Parri Cc: Alan Stern , Will Deacon , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr Message-ID: <20180905150414.JPYEv9JBKjA1OC7Qc9r5KstFEOomXvGcugH8jMiPLJw@z> On 2018/09/06 0:00, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:33:08PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On 2018/09/05 09:21:51 +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrea Parri wrote: >>>>> Heh, your confusion might be the reflection of mine... ;-) That was >>>>> indeed a long and not conclusive discussion (meaning there're pending >>>>> issues); and I cannot claim to find "arguments" such as: >>>>> >>>>> "More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that >>>>> the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking." >>>>> >>>>> particularly helpful (I do tend to be convinced by arguments rather >>>>> than by opinions). In fact, you can take the following as my only >>>>> current "constructive argument" against the patch [1,2]: >>>>> >>>>> THE COMMIT MESSAGE IS RIDICULOUS; PLEASE EXPAND ON IT, AND DO >>>>> SO BY LEVERAGING BOTH PROS AND CONS OF THE APPLIED CHANGES >>>> >>>> Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for >>>> improvements to the patch description? Earlier in your message you >>>> mentioned that Will's comment: >>>> >>>> LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon >>>> in the codebase. >>>> >>>> would make a good addition. Suitably edited, it could be added to the >>>> description. I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to >>>> hear your thoughts. Anything else? >>> >>> Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming >>> text in emails/replies are too aggressive... >> >> Andrea, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added? > > Indeed (examples in the trimmed text). So, you mean just amending commit log does not work for you? > > >> I don't think you do, but want to make sure. >> >> I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the >> commit log... > > Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument... This thread is getting quite hard for me to follow... Akira > > Andrea > > >> >> Akira >> >>> >>> Andrea >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>