> No, I'm definitely not pushing for anything stronger. I'm still just > wondering if the name "RCsc" is right for what you described. For > example, Andrea just said this in a parallel email: > > > "RCsc" as ordering everything except for W -> R, without the [extra] > > barriers
And I already regret it: the point is, different communities/people have different things in mind when they use terms such as "RCsc" or "ordering" and different communities seems to be represented in LKMM. Really, I don't think that this is simply a matter of naming (personally, I'd be OK with "foo" or whather you suggested below! ;-)). My suggestion would be: "get in there!! ;-) please let's refrain from using terms such as these (_overly_ overloaded) "RCsc" and "order" when talking about MCM let's rather talk, say, about "ppo", "cumul-fence" ... Andrea > > If it's "RCsc with exceptions", doesn't it make sense to find a > different name, rather than simply overloading the term "RCsc" with > a subtly different meaning, and hoping nobody gets confused? > > I suppose on x86 and ARM you'd happen to get "true RCsc" anyway, just > due to the way things are currently mapped: LOCKed RMWs and "true RCsc" > instructions, respectively. But on Power and RISC-V, it would really > be more "RCsc with a W->R exception", right? > > In fact, the more I think about it, this doesn't seem to be RCsc at all. > It seems closer to "RCpc plus extra PC ordering between critical > sections". No? > > The synchronization accesses themselves aren't sequentially consistent > with respect to each other under the Power or RISC-V mappings, unless > there's a hwsync in there somewhere that I missed? Or a rule > preventing stw from forwarding to lwarx? Or some other higher-order > effect preventing it from being observed anyway? > > So that's all I'm suggesting here. If you all buy that, maybe "RCpccs" > for "RCpc with processor consistent critical section ordering"? > I don't have a strong opinion on the name itself; I just want to find > a name that's less ambiguous or overloaded. > > Dan
