On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 09:32:29AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I have yet to digest the rest of the discussion, however: > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:09:04PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > The LKMM uses the same CAT code for acquire/release and lock/unlock. > > (In essence, it considers a lock to be an acquire and an unlock to be a > > release; everything else follows from that.) Treating one differently > > from the other in these tests would require some significant changes. > > It wouldn't be easy. > > That is problematic, acquire+release are very much simpler operations > than lock+unlock. > > At the very least, lock includes a control-dependency, where acquire > does not.
I don't see how this is relevant here; roughly, "if something is guaranteed by a control-dependency, that is also guaranteed by an acquire". Right? ;) Andrea
