[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200214040132.91934-4-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:01:32 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC 3/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus test for RMW + smp_mb__after_atomic()
We already use a litmus test in atomic_t.txt to describe atomic RMW +
smp_mb__after_atomic() is "strong acquire" (both the read and the write
part is ordered). So make it a litmus test in memory-model litmus-tests
directory, so that people can access the litmus easily.
Additionally, change the processor numbers "P1, P2" to "P0, P1" in
atomic_t.txt for the consistency with the processor numbers in the
litmus test, which herd can handle.
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
---
Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 6 ++--
...+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README | 5 ++++
3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus
diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
index ceb85ada378e..e3ad4e4cd9ed 100644
--- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
+++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
@@ -238,14 +238,14 @@ strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illustrated:
{
}
- P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
+ P0(int *x, atomic_t *y)
{
r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
smp_rmb();
r1 = atomic_read(y);
}
- P2(int *x, atomic_t *y)
+ P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
{
atomic_inc(y);
smp_mb__after_atomic();
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() --
because it would not order the W part of the RMW against the following
WRITE_ONCE. Thus:
- P1 P2
+ P0 P1
t = LL.acq *y (0)
t++;
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..e7216cf9d92a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+C Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Test of an atomic RMW followed by a smp_mb__after_atomic() is
+ * "strong-acquire": both the read and write part of the RMW is ordered before
+ * the subsequential memory accesses.
+ *)
+
+{
+}
+
+P0(int *x, atomic_t *y)
+{
+ r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+ smp_rmb();
+ r1 = atomic_read(y);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
+{
+ atomic_inc(y);
+ smp_mb__after_atomic();
+ WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists
+(r0=1 /\ r1=0)
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
index 81eeacebd160..774e10058c72 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
@@ -2,6 +2,11 @@
LITMUS TESTS
============
+Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire
+ Test of an atomic RMW followed by a smp_mb__after_atomic() is
+ "strong-acquire": both the read and write part of the RMW is ordered
+ before the subsequential memory accesses.
+
Atomic-set-observable-to-RMW.litmus
Test of the result of atomic_set() must be observable to atomic RMWs.
--
2.25.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists