lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 3/3] tools/memory-model: litmus: Add two tests for unlock(A)+lock(B) ordering
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:54:16PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..955b9c7cdc7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +C LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce
> +
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
> + * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, all accesses
> + * in the first must execute before any accesses in the second, even if
> + * the critical sections are protected by different locks.

One small nit; the above "all accesses" reads as if:

spin_lock(s);
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
spin_unlock(s);
spin_lock(t);
r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
spin_unlock(t);

would also work, except of course that's the one reorder allowed by TSO.

> + *)
> +
> +{}
> +
> +P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
> +{
> + int r1;
> +
> + spin_lock(s);
> + r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> + spin_unlock(s);
> + spin_lock(t);
> + WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> + spin_unlock(t);
> +}
> +
> +P1(int *x, int *y)
> +{
> + int r2;
> +
> + r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> + WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> +}
> +
> +exists (0:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=1)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-26 09:02    [W:0.051 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site