[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0bc38bc-e089-48d9-80a5-aafa54e98595@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 15:16:55 +0200
From: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
luc.maranget@...ia.fr, paulmck@...nel.org, akiyks@...il.com,
dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
hernan.poncedeleon@...weicloud.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Document herd7 (internal)
representation
Am 5/24/2024 um 5:37 PM schrieb Andrea Parri:
>> - While checking the information below using herd7, I've observed some
>> "strange" behavior with spin_is_locked() (perhaps, unsurprisingly...);
>> IAC, that's also excluded from this table/submission.
>
> For completeness, the behavior in question:
>
> $ cat T.litmus
> C T
>
> {}
>
> P0(spinlock_t *x)
> {
> int r0;
>
> spin_lock(x);
> spin_unlock(x);
> r0 = spin_is_locked(x);
> }
>
Since 0 executions are generated, possibly herd things there's a deadlock.
Could be either a problem with the deadlock definition, or do you need
to initialize the lock somehow?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists