On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:01:32PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> We already use a litmus test in atomic_t.txt to describe atomic RMW +
> smp_mb__after_atomic() is "strong acquire" (both the read and the write
> part is ordered). So make it a litmus test in memory-model litmus-tests
> directory, so that people can access the litmus easily.
>
> Additionally, change the processor numbers "P1, P2" to "P0, P1" in
> atomic_t.txt for the consistency with the processor numbers in the
> litmus test, which herd can handle.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 6 ++--
> ...+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
> tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README | 5 ++++
> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> index ceb85ada378e..e3ad4e4cd9ed 100644
> --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -238,14 +238,14 @@ strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illustrated:
> {
> }
>
> - P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> + P0(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> {
> r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> smp_rmb();
> r1 = atomic_read(y);
> }
>
> - P2(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> + P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> {
> atomic_inc(y);
> smp_mb__after_atomic();
> @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() --
> because it would not order the W part of the RMW against the following
> WRITE_ONCE. Thus:
>
> - P1 P2
> + P0 P1
>
> t = LL.acq *y (0)
> t++;
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..e7216cf9d92a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +C Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire
> +
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
> + * Test of an atomic RMW followed by a smp_mb__after_atomic() is
> + * "strong-acquire": both the read and write part of the RMW is ordered before
> + * the subsequential memory accesses.
> + *)
> +
> +{
> +}
> +
> +P0(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> +{
> + r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> + smp_rmb();
> + r1 = atomic_read(y);
> +}
> +
> +P1(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> +{
> + atomic_inc(y);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> + WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> +}
> +
> +exists
> +(r0=1 /\ r1=0)
Hmm.. this should be "(0:r0=1 /\ 0:r1=0)", I will fix this in next
verison.
Regards,
Boqun
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
> index 81eeacebd160..774e10058c72 100644
> --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
> @@ -2,6 +2,11 @@
> LITMUS TESTS
> ============
>
> +Atomic-RMW+mb__after_atomic-is-strong-acquire
> + Test of an atomic RMW followed by a smp_mb__after_atomic() is
> + "strong-acquire": both the read and write part of the RMW is ordered
> + before the subsequential memory accesses.
> +
> Atomic-set-observable-to-RMW.litmus
> Test of the result of atomic_set() must be observable to atomic RMWs.
>
> --
> 2.25.0
>
