summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/tools/memory-model
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPaul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>2022-09-03 18:57:17 +0200
committerPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>2022-10-19 00:14:52 +0200
commitfc13b47692efdc829842757798011fa2e13eb9ff (patch)
treebafe71e70ad900c24b4d0d07b37f136c054723fa /tools/memory-model
parentLinux 6.1-rc1 (diff)
downloadlinux-fc13b47692efdc829842757798011fa2e13eb9ff.tar.xz
linux-fc13b47692efdc829842757798011fa2e13eb9ff.zip
tools/memory-model: Weaken ctrl dependency definition in explanation.txt
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> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/memory-model')
-rw-r--r--tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt7
1 files 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;