On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:38 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:15:38PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > >From 0e43c93660383b7560c55131754dbc4bfaf13052 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 20:27:02 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH] memorder: Fix line numbers by applying new scheme to C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o
> >
> > Line numbers referring to Listing 15.23 don't match the line counts
> > in the snippet. Fix this by putting labels in the source of the litmus
> > test and referring them by \lnref{} macros.
> >
> > Reported-by: Junchang Wang <junchangwang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > On 2018/11/05 18:29:42 +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> > > This is the only patch for the second half of Chapter Memory Ordering. Please
> > > take a look. Thanks.
> > >
> >
> > Good catch!
> >
> > While we are here, why not apply the new scheme for snippets to this litmus
> > test? Labeling lines in the source code can prevent such mismatches.
> >
> > For the new scheme to support litmus tests, please see commit log of
> > 69a75a84d7c3 ("future/formalregress: Example of extraction of snippet from
> > .litmus file")
>
> Indeed, good catch!!! And here I -thought- that I proof-read this stuff...
>
> Junchang, does Akira's approach look good to you?
>
Hi Paul,
Sorry for the late response. The new scheme is the right approach in
comparison to hard-coding line numbers; Akira's approach looks good to
me.
@Akira Yokosawa Thanks a lot for pointing me to the right scheme,
which looks nice. I believe we programmers tend to hard-coding line
numbers/variables at the very beginning of drafting/coding; that's a
nice tradeoff between efficiency and portability :-) . I can help
check and apply the new scheme in reading through other chapters.
Thanks,
--Junchang
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanks. Akira
> >
> > --
> > .../formal/litmus/C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o.litmus | 22 ++++-----
> > memorder/memorder.tex | 52 +++-------------------
> > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/CodeSamples/formal/litmus/C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o.litmus b/CodeSamples/formal/litmus/C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o.litmus
> > index 343fded..b899369 100644
> > --- a/CodeSamples/formal/litmus/C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o.litmus
> > +++ b/CodeSamples/formal/litmus/C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o.litmus
> > @@ -1,15 +1,16 @@
> > C C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o
> > +//\begin[snippet][labelbase=ln:formal:litmus:C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o:whole,commandchars=\\\@\$]
> > {
> > }
> >
> > -{
> > -#include "api.h"
> > -}
> > -
> > +{ //\fcvexclude
> > +#include "api.h" //\fcvexclude
> > +} //\fcvexclude
> > + //\fcvexclude
> > P0(int *x0, int *x1)
> > {
> > WRITE_ONCE(*x0, 2);
> > - smp_store_release(x1, 2);
> > + smp_store_release(x1, 2); //\lnlbl[P0:rel]
> > }
> >
> >
> > @@ -17,16 +18,16 @@ P1(int *x1, int *x2)
> > {
> > int r2;
> >
> > - r2 = smp_load_acquire(x1);
> > - smp_store_release(x2, 2);
> > + r2 = smp_load_acquire(x1); //\lnlbl[P1:acq]
> > + smp_store_release(x2, 2); //\lnlbl[P1:rel]
> > }
> >
> > P2(int *x2, int *x3)
> > {
> > int r2;
> >
> > - r2 = smp_load_acquire(x2);
> > - smp_store_release(x3, 2);
> > + r2 = smp_load_acquire(x2); //\lnlbl[P2:acq]
> > + smp_store_release(x3, 2); //\lnlbl[P2:rel]
> > }
> >
> > P3(int *x3, int *x0)
> > @@ -34,8 +35,9 @@ P3(int *x3, int *x0)
> > int r1;
> > int r2;
> >
> > - r1 = smp_load_acquire(x3);
> > + r1 = smp_load_acquire(x3); //\lnlbl[P3:acq]
> > r2 = READ_ONCE(*x0);
> > }
> >
> > +//\end[snippet]
> > exists (1:r2=2 /\ 2:r2=2 /\ 3:r1=2 /\ 3:r2=0)
> > diff --git a/memorder/memorder.tex b/memorder/memorder.tex
> > index 8e11e92..d92d1e5 100644
> > --- a/memorder/memorder.tex
> > +++ b/memorder/memorder.tex
> > @@ -2841,49 +2841,7 @@ from the passage of time, so that no matter how many threads are
> > involved, the corresponding \co{exists} clause cannot trigger.
> >
> > \begin{listing}[tbp]
> > -{ \scriptsize
> > -\begin{verbbox}[\LstLineNo]
> > -C C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o
> > -{
> > -}
> > -
> > -P0(int *x0, int *x1)
> > -{
> > - WRITE_ONCE(*x0, 2);
> > - smp_store_release(x1, 2);
> > -}
> > -
> > -
> > -P1(int *x1, int *x2)
> > -{
> > - int r2;
> > -
> > - r2 = smp_load_acquire(x1);
> > - smp_store_release(x2, 2);
> > -}
> > -
> > -P2(int *x2, int *x3)
> > -{
> > - int r2;
> > -
> > - r2 = smp_load_acquire(x2);
> > - smp_store_release(x3, 2);
> > -}
> > -
> > -P3(int *x3, int *x0)
> > -{
> > - int r1;
> > - int r2;
> > -
> > - r1 = smp_load_acquire(x3);
> > - r2 = READ_ONCE(*x0);
> > -}
> > -
> > -exists (1:r2=2 /\ 2:r2=2 /\ 3:r1=2 /\ 3:r2=0)
> > -\end{verbbox}
> > -}
> > -\centering
> > -\theverbbox
> > +\input{CodeSamples/formal/litmus/C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o@xxxxxxxxx}
> > \caption{Long ISA2 Release-Acquire Chain}
> > \label{lst:memorder:Long ISA2 Release-Acquire Chain}
> > \end{listing}
> > @@ -2899,16 +2857,20 @@ shows a three-step release-acquire chain, but where \co{P3()}'s
> > final access is a \co{READ_ONCE()} from \co{x0}, which is
> > accessed via \co{WRITE_ONCE()} by \co{P0()}, forming a non-temporal
> > load-to-store link between these two processes.
> > -However, because \co{P0()}'s \co{smp_store_release()} (line~12)
> > +\begin{lineref}[ln:formal:litmus:C-ISA2+o-r+a-r+a-r+a-o:whole]
> > +However, because \co{P0()}'s \co{smp_store_release()} (line~\lnref{P0:rel})
> > is cumulative, if \co{P3()}'s \co{READ_ONCE()} returns zero,
> > this cumulativity will force the \co{READ_ONCE()} to be ordered
> > before \co{P0()}'s \co{smp_store_release()}.
> > -In addition, the release-acquire chain (lines~12, 20, 21, 28, 29, and~37)
> > +In addition, the release-acquire chain
> > +(lines~\lnref{P0:rel}, \lnref{P1:acq}, \lnref{P1:rel}, \lnref{P2:acq},
> > +\lnref{P2:rel}, and~\lnref{P3:acq})
> > forces \co{P3()}'s \co{READ_ONCE()} to be ordered after \co{P0()}'s
> > \co{smp_store_release()}.
> > Because \co{P3()}'s \co{READ_ONCE()} cannot be both before and after
> > \co{P0()}'s \co{smp_store_release()}, either or both of two things must
> > be true:
> > +\end{lineref}
> >
> > \begin{enumerate}
> > \item \co{P3()}'s \co{READ_ONCE()} came after \co{P0()}'s
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>
