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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:34262 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752899AbeC1OTW (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:19:22 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2SEGuBN106611 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:19:22 -0400 Received: from e11.ny.us.ibm.com (e11.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.201]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2h0bpnke45-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:19:21 -0400 Received: from localhost by e11.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:19:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:20:04 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat} Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180328134232.GA29274@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: <20180328142004.GR3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 Message-ID: <20180328142004.hUKnr1AgvUjvL72xea-TwqSJnDqf9l2rG2XBnryQTi0@z> 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