public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
	Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
	Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory-model: fix cheat sheet typo
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:54:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180413095448.GA10490@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180412211836.GG3948@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:18:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:21:55PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > 
> > The litmus test that first comes to my mind when I think of cumulativity
> > (at least, 'cumulativity' as intended in LKMM) is:
> > 
> >    WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus
> 
> Removing the "cumul-fence* ;" from "let prop" does cause this test to be
> allowed, so looks plausible.
> 
> > for 'propagation', I could mention:
> > 
> >    IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
> 
> And removing the "acyclic pb as propagation" causes this one to be allowed,
> so again plausible.
> 
> > (both tests are availabe in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/). It would
> > be a nice to mention these properties in the test descriptions, indeed.
> 
> Please see below.

Matching what I had in mind ;) thanks!

  Andrea


> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > You might find it useful to also visualize the 'valid' executions (with
> > the main events/relations) associated to each of these tests; for this,
> > 
> >    $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg litmus-tests/your-test.litmus \
> > 	-show all -gv
> > 
> > (assuming you have 'gv' installed).
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> commit 494f11d10dd7d86e4a381cbe79e77f04cb0cee04
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date:   Thu Apr 12 14:15:57 2018 -0700
> 
>     EXP tools/memory-model: Flag "cumulativity" and "propagation" tests
>     
>     This commit flags WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus as being
>     forbidden by LKMM cumulativity and IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus as
>     being forbidden by LKMM propagation.
>     
>     Suggested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> 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..178941d2a51a 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 an example
> +	that is forbidden by LKMM propagation.
>  
>  IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
>  	Test of independent reads from independent writes with nothing
> @@ -121,6 +122,7 @@ 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.
> +	The second is an example that is forbidden by LKMM cumulativity.
>  
>  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..5bda4784eb34 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 +5,8 @@ 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.  This
> + * litmus test exercises LKMM cumulativity.
>   *)
>  
>  {}
> 

      reply	other threads:[~2018-04-13  9:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-09 16:50 [PATCH] memory-model: fix cheat sheet typo Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-09 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-10 20:32   ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-10 21:10     ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-10 21:34       ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-11 11:15         ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-11 16:19           ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-11 16:31             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-11 17:06               ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-12 12:52                 ` Boqun Feng
2018-04-12  9:23           ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-12 10:18             ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-12 11:21               ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-12 21:18                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-13  9:54                   ` Andrea Parri [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180413095448.GA10490@andrea \
    --to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
    --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox