linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:16:42 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     schwidefsky@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        parri.andrea@...il.com, will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:50:19AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > > I will look at this more later, reaching end of both battery and useful
> > > > attention span...
> > 
> > Like the following, perhaps?
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > s390
> > 
> > include "fences.cat"
> > include "cos.cat"
> > 
> > (* Fundamental coherence ordering *)
> > let com = rf | co | fr
> > acyclic po-loc | com as coherence
> > 
> > (* Atomic *)
> > empty rmw & (fre;coe) as atom 
> > 
> > (* Fences *)
> > let mb = [M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M]
> > 
> > (* TSO with multicopy atomicity *)
> > let po-ghb = ([R] ; po ; [M]) | ([M] ; po ; [W]) 
> > acyclic mb | po-ghb | fr | rf | co as sc
> 
> Yes, that should work okay (apart from issues related to ordering of
> atomic accesses).
> 
> By the way, what does that last "sc" stand for?  Surely not Sequential
> Consistency!  You might consider renaming it to "tso-mca".

Good point, fixed.

But it is the closest to SC in commercial computing systems, for whatever
that is worth.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul