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.
> *)
>
> {}
>
prev parent 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