From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat} Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:20:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20180328142004.GR3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20180328134232.GA29274@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com, will.deacon@arm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:48:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:42:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Hello! > > > > The prototype patch shown below provides files required to allow herd7 to > > evaluate C-language litmus tests for the multicopy-atomic TSO ordering > > provided by s390. > > There really isn't anything s390 specific here is there? That is, would > this not equally work for x86 and sparc, both of which are similarly TSO > ? As I understand it, there is a difference. The difference from TSO systems such as x86 is that s390 is multicopy atomic as well as TSO. In contrast, x86 is TSO as well as other-multicopy-atomic. I must defer to Martin and Christian for details -- this should be interpreted as a feeble first attempt on my part, not any sort of IBM-approved definition of s390. ;-) > Given that, should this not be called TSO instead of s390 ? I agree completely with a single tso.cfg, TSO.cfg, or whatever name, as opposed to a bunch of identical files for x86, SPARC, ... Thanx, Paul