On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:39:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Should we start putting litmus tests for the various examples > > somewhere, perhaps in a litmus-tests directory within each participating > > architecture? I have a pile of powerpc-related litmus tests on my laptop, > > but they probably aren't doing all that much good there. > > Yeah, or a version of them in C that we can 'compile'? That would be good as well. I am guessing that architecture-specific litmus tests will also be needed, but you are right that architecture-independent versions are higher priority. > > commit 2cb4e83a1b5c89c8e39b8a64bd89269d05913e41 > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Jan 15 09:30:42 2016 -0800 > > > > documentation: Distinguish between local and global transitivity > > > > The introduction of smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() had > > the side effect of introducing a weaker notion of transitivity: > > The transitivity of full smp_mb() barriers is global, but that > > of smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() chains is local. This > > commit therefore introduces the notion of local transitivity and > > gives an example. > > > > Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reported-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I think it fails to mention smp_mb__after_release_acquire(), although I > suspect we didn't actually introduce the primitive yet, which raises the > point, do we want to? Well, it is not in v4.4. I believe that we need good use cases before we add it. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
