[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201008140148.GA495091@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:01:48 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, parri.andrea@...il.com,
will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug in herd7 [Was: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro]
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 07:50:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> There are some distractions at the moment.
>
> Please see below. If this is not exactly correct, I will use "git rm"
> and let you submit the patch as you wish.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit dc0119c24b64f9d541b94ba5d17eec0cbc265bfa
> Author: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Date: Tue Oct 6 09:38:37 2020 -0700
>
> manual/kernel: Add LB data dependency test with no intermediate variable
>
> Test whether herd7 can detect a data dependency when there is no
> intermediate local variable, as in WRITE_ONCE(*x, READ_ONCE(*y)).
> Commit 0f3f8188a326 in herdtools fixed an oversight which caused such
> dependencies to be missed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>
> diff --git a/manual/kernel/C-LB+mb+data.litmus b/manual/kernel/C-LB+mb+data.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..e9e24e0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/manual/kernel/C-LB+mb+data.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> +C LB+mb+data
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
> + * Versions of herd7 prior to commit 0f3f8188a326 ("[herd] Fix dependency
> + * definition") recognize data dependencies only when they flow through
> + * an intermediate local variable. Since the dependency in P1 doesn't,
> + * those versions get the wrong answer for this test.
> + *)
> +
> +{}
> +
> +P0(int *x, int *y)
> +{
> + int r1;
> +
> + r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> + smp_mb();
> + WRITE_ONCE(*y, r1);
> +}
> +
> +P1(int *x, int *y)
> +{
> + WRITE_ONCE(*x, READ_ONCE(*y));
> +}
> +
> +exists (0:r1=1)
Okay, that's exactly what it should be. :-)
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists