lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] tools/memory-model: Weaken ctrl dependency definition in explanation.txt
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 04:57:17PM +0000, Paul Heidekrüger wrote:
> The current informal control dependency definition in explanation.txt is
> too broad and, as discussed, 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 definition 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>
> Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>

I have pulled this one in, thank you both!

It can still be updated if need be. ;-)

Thanx, Paul

> ---
>
> v4:
> - Replace "a memory access event" with "a write event"
>
> v3:
> - Address Alan and Joel's feedback re: the wording around switch statements
> and the use of "guarding"
>
> v2:
> - Fix typos
> - Fix indentation of code snippet
>
> v1:
> @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..11a1d2d4f681 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 a write event Y are linked by a control
> +dependency if Y syntactically lies within an arm of an if statement and
> +X affects the evaluation of the if condition via a data or address
> +dependency (or similarly for a switch statement). Simple example:
>
> int x, y;
>
> --
> 2.35.1
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-03 22:20    [W:0.033 / U:4.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site