lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH memory-model 11/19] tools/memory-model: Flag "cumulativity" and "propagation" tests
Date
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.

Reported-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ paulmck: Updated wording as suggested by Alan Stern. ]
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
---
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.
*)

{}
--
2.5.2
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-15 01:35    [W:0.235 / U:1.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site