[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8+8fH52iqQABYs2@andrea>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:09:48 +0100
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, will <will@...nel.org>,
"boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, npiggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"j.alglave" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
"luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@...il.com>,
dlustig <dlustig@...dia.com>, joel <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
urezki <urezki@...il.com>,
quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
frederic <frederic@...nel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
test)
> There is the one below, but I am (1) not sure that I have it right,
> (2) not immediately certain that the Linux-kernel implementation would
> forbid it, (3) not immediately sure that it should be forbidden.
>
> In the meantime, thoughts?
As it stands, P0 to completion, then P1 to completion, then P2 to
completion should meet the "exists" clause; I guess we want "x=1"
in the clause (or the values of the stores to "x" exchanged).
Andrea
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> C C-srcu-observed-3
>
> (*
> * Result: Sometimes
> *)
>
> {}
>
> P0(int *x, int *y, int *z, struct srcu_struct *s)
> {
> int r1;
>
> r1 = srcu_read_lock(s);
> WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> srcu_read_unlock(s, r1);
> }
>
> P1(int *x, int *y, int *z, struct srcu_struct *s)
> {
> int r1;
>
> r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> synchronize_srcu(s);
> WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
> }
>
> P2(int *x, int *y, int *z, struct srcu_struct *s)
> {
> WRITE_ONCE(*z, 2);
> smp_mb();
> WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
> }
>
> exists (1:r1=1 /\ x=2 /\ z=2)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists