[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180328142004.GR3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:20:04 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: schwidefsky@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
will.deacon@....com, 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 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists