On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:20:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:48:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:42:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > The prototype patch shown below provides files required to allow herd7 to > > > evaluate C-language litmus tests for the multicopy-atomic TSO ordering > > > provided by s390. > > > > There really isn't anything s390 specific here is there? That is, would > > this not equally work for x86 and sparc, both of which are similarly TSO > > ? > > As I understand it, there is a difference. The difference from TSO > systems such as x86 is that s390 is multicopy atomic as well as TSO. > In contrast, x86 is TSO as well as other-multicopy-atomic. I must defer > to Martin and Christian for details -- this should be interpreted as a > feeble first attempt on my part, not any sort of IBM-approved definition > of s390. ;-) > > > Given that, should this not be called TSO instead of s390 ? > > I agree completely with a single tso.cfg, TSO.cfg, or whatever name, > as opposed to a bunch of identical files for x86, SPARC, ... And to Alan's point, it appears that you can already test x86 TSO ordering on C-language litmus tests as follows: herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg -cat x86tso.cat litmus-tests/SB+poonceoncescoh.litmus Might simply be working by accident, but it does currently work. ;-) Thanx, Paul
