From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752373AbeEOGcz (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2018 02:32:55 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.136]:44357 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752195AbeEOGcx (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2018 02:32:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 23:32:17 -0700 From: "tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney" Message-ID: Cc: mingo@kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <1526340837-12222-11-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1526340837-12222-11-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: [tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Flag "cumulativity" and "propagation" tests Git-Commit-ID: 1bd3742043fa44dd0ec25770abdcdfe1f6e8681e X-Mailer: tip-git-log-daemon Robot-ID: Robot-Unsubscribe: Contact to get blacklisted from these emails MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Commit-ID: 1bd3742043fa44dd0ec25770abdcdfe1f6e8681e Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/1bd3742043fa44dd0ec25770abdcdfe1f6e8681e Author: Paul E. McKenney AuthorDate: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:33:49 -0700 Committer: Ingo Molnar CommitDate: Tue, 15 May 2018 08:11:17 +0200 tools/memory-model: Flag "cumulativity" and "propagation" tests This commit flags WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus as being forbidden by smp_store_release() A-cumulativity and IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus as being forbidden by the LKMM propagation rule. Suggested-by: Andrea Parri Reported-by: Paolo Bonzini [ paulmck: Updated wording as suggested by Alan Stern. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Alan Stern Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Cc: akiyks@gmail.com Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr Cc: npiggin@gmail.com Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526340837-12222-11-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus | 2 +- tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README | 9 ++++++--- .../litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus | 4 +++- 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus index 50d5db9ea983..98a3716efa37 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ C IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce * between each pairs of reads. In other words, is smp_mb() sufficient to * cause two different reading processes to agree on the order of a pair * of writes, where each write is to a different variable by a different - * process? + * process? This litmus test exercises LKMM's "propagation" rule. *) {} diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README index 6919909bbd0f..17eb9a8c222d 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README @@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus between each pairs of reads. In other words, is smp_mb() sufficient to cause two different reading processes to agree on the order of a pair of writes, where each write is to a different - variable by a different process? + variable by a different process? This litmus test is forbidden + by LKMM's propagation rule. IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus Test of independent reads from independent writes with nothing @@ -119,8 +120,10 @@ S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus WRC+poonceonces+Once.litmus WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus - These two are members of an extension of the MP litmus-test class - in which the first write is moved to a separate process. + These two are members of an extension of the MP litmus-test + class in which the first write is moved to a separate process. + The second is forbidden because smp_store_release() is + A-cumulative in LKMM. Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus Is the ordering provided by a spin_unlock() and a subsequent diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus index 97fcbffde9a0..ad3448b941e6 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ C WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once * * This litmus test is an extension of the message-passing pattern, where * the first write is moved to a separate process. Because it features - * a release and a read memory barrier, it should be forbidden. + * a release and a read memory barrier, it should be forbidden. More + * specifically, this litmus test is forbidden because smp_store_release() + * is A-cumulative in LKMM. *) {}