lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH] tools/memory-model: Weaken ctrl dependency definition in explanation.txt
Date
The current informal control dependency definition in explanation.txt is
too broad and, as dicsussed, needs to be updated.

Consider the following example:

> if(READ_ONCE(x))
> return 42;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(y, 42);
>
> return 21;

The read event determines whether the write event will be executed "at
all" - as per the current definition - but the formal LKMM does not
recognize this as a control dependency.

Introduce a new defintion which includes the requirement for the second
memory access event to syntactically lie within the arm of a non-loop
conditional.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220615114330.2573952-1-paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de/
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Charalampos Mainas <charalampos.mainas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pramod Bhatotia <pramod.bhatotia@in.tum.de>
Cc: Soham Chakraborty <s.s.chakraborty@tudelft.nl>
Cc: Martin Fink <martin.fink@in.tum.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>
Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
---

@Alan:

Since I got it wrong the last time, I'm adding you as a co-developer after my
SOB. I'm sorry if this creates extra work on your side due to you having to
resubmit the patch now with your SOB if I understand correctly, but since it's
based on your wording from the other thread, I definitely wanted to give you
credit.

tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
index ee819a402b69..0bca50cac5f4 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
+++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
@@ -464,9 +464,10 @@ to address dependencies, since the address of a location accessed
through a pointer will depend on the value read earlier from that
pointer.

-Finally, a read event and another memory access event are linked by a
-control dependency if the value obtained by the read affects whether
-the second event is executed at all. Simple example:
+Finally, a read event X and another memory access event Y are linked by
+a control dependency if Y syntactically lies within an arm of an if,
+else or switch statement and the condition guarding Y is either data or
+address-dependent on X. Simple example:

int x, y;

--
2.35.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-30 22:51    [W:0.058 / U:3.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site