On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 08:40:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 11:22:52PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > > On 2017/07/04 15:21:38 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:23:09AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > > >> >From 2845eb208a6e63493997de47293a47ef774a9d49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > >> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 23:18:30 +0900
> > > >> Subject: [PATCH] advsync: Fix store-buffering sequence table
> > > >>
> > > >> Row 6 of the table added in commit 2d5bf8d25a71 ("advsync: Add
> > > >> memory-barriered store-buffering example") needs some context
> > > >> adjustment.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also tweak horizontal spacing of wide tables for one-column layout.
> > > >> Also add a few words to the footnote giving definition of
> > > >> __atomic_thread_fence().
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Good catches! Queued and pushed. I reworded the footnote a bit, so
> > > > please let me know if I overdid it.
> > >
> > > After your changes in commit 036372ac2573 ("advsync: Use gcc's C11-like
> > > intrinsics to avoid data races"), this footnote seems verbose, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > But, I'm not so much a fan of the changes of your commit.
> > > It becomes hard to see the relation of lines in litmus tests and rows
> > > in the tables. Also, those intrinsics have fairly large overheads.
> >
> > They certainly are ugly, no two ways about that! ;-)
> >
> > > How about using "volatile" in thread arg declaration such as the following?
> > >
> > > ---
> > > C C-SB+o-o+o-o
> > > {
> > > }
> > >
> > > P0(volatile int *x0, volatile int *x1)
> > > {
> > > int r2;
> > >
> > > *x0 = 2;
> > > r2 = *x1;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > P1(volatile int *x0, volatile int *x1)
> > > {
> > > int r2;
> > >
> > > *x1 = 2;
> > > r2 = *x0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > exists (1:r2=0 /\ 0:r2=0)
> > > ---
> > >
> > > If all you need is to prevent memory accesses from being optimized away,
> > > they should suffice. But they might be unpopular among kernel community.
> >
> > To say nothing of their unpopularity among the C11 and C++11
> > communities!
> >
> > > I checked the generated C code in cross-compiling mode of litmus7, and
> > > the volatile-ness is reflected there.
> >
> > And it also works just fine without the volatile -- the litmus7 tool
> > does the translation so as to avoid destructive compiler optimizations.
> >
> > I am checking with the litmus7 people to see if there is any way to
> > map identifiers. Some of the other tools support a "-macros"
> > command-line argument, which would allow mapping from "smp_mb()" to
> > "__atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)", but not litmus7.
> >
> > So I cannot go with "volatile", but let's see if I can do something
> > better than the gcc intrinsics.
>
> And if the litmus7 guys don't have anything for me, I can always write a
> script to do the conversions. So either way, we will have kernel-style
> notation at some point. ;-)
And it turns out that the contents of a second "{}" in a litmus7 test
is pulled directly into the output code, so an easy change. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
