On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:31:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 07:37:08PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > > Hi Akira, > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 01:14:10AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > > > Hi Paul, > > > CC: Andrea > > > > > > This is intentionally off the list, as I was not cc'd in the thread. > > > If you think it is worthwhile, could you help me join the thread by > > > forwarding the following part as a reply to your message, plus CC: to me. > > > > [CCing lists and other people] > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 17:21:03AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:12:48AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > >> Recent efforts led to the specification of a memory consistency model > > > >> for the Linux kernel [1], which "can (roughly speaking) be thought of > > > >> as an automated version of memory-barriers.txt" and which is (in turn) > > > >> "accompanied by extensive documentation on its use and its design". > > > >> > > > >> Make sure that the (occasional) reader of memory-barriers.txt will be > > > >> aware of these developments. > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151687290114799&w=2 > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I am inclined to pull in something along these lines, but would like > > > > some feedback on the wording, especially how "official" we want to > > > > make the memory model to be. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > The change log of commit e7720af5f9ac ("locking/Documentation: Add > > > disclaimer") says: > > > > > > It appears people are reading this document as a requirements list for > > > building hardware. This is not the intent of this document. Nor is it > > > particularly suited for this purpose. > > > > > > The primary purpose of this document is our collective attempt to > > > define > > > a set of primitives that (hopefully) allow us to write correct code on > > > the myriad of SMP platforms Linux supports. > > > > > > Its a definite work in progress as our understanding of these > > > platforms, > > > and memory ordering in general, progresses. > > > > > > Nor does being mentioned in this document mean we think its a > > > particularly good idea; the data dependency barrier required by Alpha > > > being a prime example. Yes we have it, no you're insane to require it > > > when building new hardware. > > > > > > My take on the Linux Kernel memory-consistency model is a supplement of > > > memory-barriers.txt and the disclaimer also applies to the memory model. > > > > > > > > > > > If I don't hear otherwise in a couple of days, I will pull this as is. > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > >> --- > > > >> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 4 +++- > > > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > >> b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > >> index a863009849a3b..8cc3f098f4a7d 100644 > > > >> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > >> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > >> @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@ meant as a guide to using the various memory > > > >> barriers provided by Linux, but > > > >> in case of any doubt (and there are many) please ask. > > > >> > > > >> To repeat, this document is not a specification of what Linux expects > > > >> from > > > >> -hardware. > > > >> +hardware. For such a specification, in the form of a memory > > > >> consistency > > > >> +model, and for documentation about its usage and its design, the > > > >> reader is > > > >> +referred to "tools/memory-model/". > > > >> > > > > > > Adding cross-reference in this way can _weaken_ the message of the > > > disclaimer. > > > > Thank you for your remarks; I do share the same concern. > > > > > What about adding it in the previous sentence as the patch appended > > > bellow? > > > > I do like this idea: I believe that my phrasing (and that "what Linux > > expects from hardware") may be easily subject to misinterpretation... > > which your solution can avoid. > > Any objections to Akira's patch below? (Give or take the usual > wordsmithing.) > > Andrea, should I interpret your paragraph above ask an Acked-by?
Well, I am among the Signed-off-by: of the patch; it didn't seem too fair to me to Ack my own patch... ;-) Is the wording sound? other suggestions? Andrea > > Thanx, Paul > > > Andrea > > > > > > > > > > The tag use in the change log may need adjustments. I'm not familiar with > > > the > > > manner in modifying other persons' patches. Of course, the wording itself > > > can > > > be improved further. Any feedback is welcome. > > > > > > Thanks, Akira > > > > > > >> The purpose of this document is twofold: > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> 2.7.4 > > > >> > > > > > > ----8<------- > > > From 714e8c4b09acd6e965de116532dce05070b9e636 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 00:28:36 +0900 > > > Subject: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: cross-reference > > > "tools/memory-model/" > > > > > > Recent efforts led to the specification of a memory consistency model > > > for the Linux kernel [1], which "can (roughly speaking) be thought of > > > as an automated version of memory-barriers.txt" and which is (in turn) > > > "accompanied by extensive documentation on its use and its design". > > > > > > Make sure that the (occasional) reader of memory-barriers.txt will be > > > aware of these developments. > > > > > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151687290114799&w=2 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > index 479ecec..975488d 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > > @@ -14,7 +14,9 @@ DISCLAIMER > > > This document is not a specification; it is intentionally (for the sake > > > of > > > brevity) and unintentionally (due to being human) incomplete. This > > > document is > > > meant as a guide to using the various memory barriers provided by Linux, > > > but > > > -in case of any doubt (and there are many) please ask. > > > +in case of any doubt (and there are many) please ask. For clarification > > > of such > > > +doubt, in the form of a memory consistency model, and for documentation > > > about > > > +its usage and its design, the reader is referred to > > > "tools/memory-model/". > > > > > > To repeat, this document is not a specification of what Linux expects > > > from > > > hardware. > > > -- > > > 2.7.4 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
