From: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
puranjay@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, lkmm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Some observations (results) on BPF acquire and release
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:44:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35bed95a-3203-43a7-972d-f3fd3c7da6f9@huaweicloud.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zxk2wNs4sxEIg-4d@andrea>
Am 10/23/2024 um 7:47 PM schrieb Andrea Parri:
> Hi Puranjay and Paul,
>
> These remarks show that the proposed BPF formalization of acquire and
> release somehow, but substantially, diverged from the corresponding
> LKMM formalization. My guess is that the divergences mentioned above
> were not (fully) intentional, or I'm wondering -- why not follow the
> latter (the LKMM's) more closely? - This is probably the first question
> I would need to clarify before trying/suggesting modifications to the
> present formalizations. ;-) Thoughts?
>
I'm also curious why the formalization (not just in the semantics but
also how it is structured) is so completely different from LKMM's.
At first glance there are also many semantic differences, e.g., it seems
coe is much weaker in eBPF and the last axiom also seems a bit like a
tack-on that doesn't "play well" with the previous axioms.
It would make sense to me to start with the framework of LKMM and maybe
weaken it from there if it is really necessary. But maybe I don't know
enough about how eBPF atomics are intended to work...
Best wishes,
jonas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-24 11:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-23 17:47 Some observations (results) on BPF acquire and release Andrea Parri
2024-10-24 4:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-24 11:13 ` Andrea Parri
2024-10-25 13:56 ` Andrea Parri
2024-11-13 19:25 ` Andrea Parri
2024-11-13 22:59 ` Puranjay Mohan
2024-11-14 14:56 ` Andrea Parri
2024-10-24 11:44 ` Jonas Oberhauser [this message]
2024-10-24 12:11 ` Puranjay Mohan
2024-10-24 12:21 ` Jonas Oberhauser
2024-10-24 14:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-10-25 9:32 ` Hernan Ponce de Leon
2024-10-25 13:15 ` Andrea Parri
2024-10-25 13:28 ` Hernan Ponce de Leon
2024-10-25 13:44 ` Andrea Parri
2024-10-25 13:57 ` Hernan Ponce de Leon
2024-10-25 14:27 ` Andrea Parri
2024-10-25 15:00 ` Hernan Ponce de Leon
2024-10-25 23:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=35bed95a-3203-43a7-972d-f3fd3c7da6f9@huaweicloud.com \
--to=jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkmm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).