On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > like a variant on WWC and I couldn't really follow it). > > > > I will revisit my WRC Linux example. And yes, creating litmus tests > > that use non-fake dependencies is still a bit of an undertaking. :-/ > > I am sure that it will seem more natural with time and experience... > > Hmmm... You are quite right, I did do WWC. I need to change cpu2()'s > last access from a store to a load to get WRC. Plus the levels of > indirection definitely didn't match up, did they? Nope, it was pretty baffling! > struct foo { > struct foo *next; > }; > struct foo a; > struct foo b; > struct foo c = { &a }; > struct foo d = { &b }; > struct foo x = { &c }; > struct foo y = { &d }; > struct foo *r1, *r2, *r3; > > void cpu0(void) > { > WRITE_ONCE(x.next, &y); > } > > void cpu1(void) > { > r1 = lockless_dereference(x.next); > WRITE_ONCE(r1->next, &x); > } > > void cpu2(void) > { > r2 = lockless_dereference(y.next); > r3 = READ_ONCE(r2->next); > } > > In this case, it is legal to end the run with: > > r1 == &y && r2 == &x && r3 == &c > > Please see below for a ppcmem litmus test. > > So, did I get it right this time? ;-) The code above looks correct to me (in that it matches WRC+addrs), but your litmus test: > PPC WRCnf+addrs > "" > { > 0:r2=x; 0:r3=y; > 1:r2=x; 1:r3=y; > 2:r2=x; 2:r3=y; > c=a; d=b; x=c; y=d; > } > P0 | P1 | P2 ; > stw r3,0(r2) | lwz r8,0(r2) | lwz r8,0(r3) ; > | stw r2,0(r3) | lwz r9,0(r8) ; > exists > (1:r8=y /\ 2:r8=x /\ 2:r9=c) Seems to be missing the address dependency on P1. Will _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization