> PS - I'm still fairly sure there's a difference in the movement of memory
> operations allowed by the two proposals, but I'm less sure about the
> The CRF paper explicitly states that it permits normal reads and writes to
> move into a lock region, and prevents memory operations inside the lock
> region from moving outside.
> But what movement is allowed by the operational semantics model? My
> revised interpretation is that normal writes can move up and down across a
> lock but cannot cross an unlock; while normal reads cannot cross a lock but
> can move up and down across an unlock. What's the real story?
Normal reads and writes can move into a synchronized block from either
direction. There is actually a short note about this in the tech report
version of the paper, which should be available sometime today. In more
A lock acts as an acquire. Moving a read past a lock does not affect the
memory semantics. As soon as a write occurs, that value goes into the set
of values that can be read from the variable. A read will essentially
pick one of these values at random to be read. The lock operation may
remove some of these values from this set, but any of the values that are
left over will still have been in the set when the read originally
would have occurred. So the "random" value picked is just a little less
random, but that's okay, because we don't say "random with guaranteed
equal probability across all platforms".
An unlock acts as a release. Moving a write up before an unlock operation
doesn't make any difference; a read in another thread picks a value at
random that has been written to the variable. Again, it is simply "more
likely" to pick the value for the write if there is communication between
the threads through the monitor.
Now, this explanation skims over how values for a variable are removed
from the set, but that happens in fairly obvious ways.
I have been thinking of different ways to say all of that for a few days
now; I am sticking it in my "explanatory note" on the model. I am
actually coming to the conclusion that it is difficult to explain it
without some previous understanding of our model. Is the above at all
We have a section in the tech report with more on the differences between
our model and CRF, but it would be impossible for it to come from us
without its making ours sound better (insert smiley face here). And
anyway, if we didn't believe we could build a better mousetrap, what would
be the point of building one at all? We could just buy one from the
hardware store like everyone else.
JavaMemoryModel mailing list - http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:31 EDT