[tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Rename litmus tests to comply to norm7

From: tip-bot for Andrea Parri
Date: Tue Jul 17 2018 - 05:33:50 EST

Next message: Colin Ian King: "Re: [PATCH] nfsd: fix memory leak of async_copy"
Previous message: Gustavo Pimentel: "[PATCH v12 05/12] PCI: dwc: Rework MSI callbacks handler"
In reply to: Paul E. McKenney: "[PATCH memory-model 14/14] tools/memory-model: Rename litmus tests to comply to norm7"
Next in thread: Paul E. McKenney: "[PATCH memory-model 11/14] locking: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Commit-ID: 71b7ff5ebc9b1d5aa95eb48d6388234f1304fd19
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/71b7ff5ebc9b1d5aa95eb48d6388234f1304fd19
Author: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
AuthorDate: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:06:05 -0700
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
CommitDate: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:30:36 +0200

tools/memory-model: Rename litmus tests to comply to norm7

norm7 produces the 'normalized' name of a litmus test, when the test
can be generated from a single cycle that passes through each process
exactly once. The commit renames such tests in order to comply to the
naming scheme implemented by this tool.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716180605.16115-14-paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/memory-model/Documentation/recipes.txt | 8 ++++----
tools/memory-model/README | 20 ++++++++++----------
....litmus => IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus} | 2 +-
...litmus => LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus} | 2 +-
...s => MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus} | 2 +-
...+mbonceonces.litmus => R+fencembonceonces.litmus} | 2 +-
tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README | 16 ++++++++--------
...itmus => S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus} | 2 +-
...mbonceonces.litmus => SB+fencembonceonces.litmus} | 2 +-
...> WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus} | 2 +-
...erelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus} | 2 +-
11 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/recipes.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/recipes.txt
index 1fea8ef2b184..af72700cc20a 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/recipes.txt
+++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/recipes.txt
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ However, it is not necessarily the case that accesses ordered by
locking will be seen as ordered by CPUs not holding that lock.
Consider this example:

- /* See Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus. */
+ /* See Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus. */
void CPU0(void)
{
spin_lock(&mylock);
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ and to use smp_load_acquire() instead of smp_rmb(). However, the older
smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() APIs are still heavily used, so it is important
to understand their use cases. The general approach is shown below:

- /* See MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus. */
+ /* See MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus. */
void CPU0(void)
{
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
@@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ can be seen in the LB+poonceonces.litmus litmus test.
One way of avoiding the counter-intuitive outcome is through the use of a
control dependency paired with a full memory barrier:

- /* See LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus. */
+ /* See LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus. */
void CPU0(void)
{
r0 = READ_ONCE(x);
@@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ that one CPU first stores to one variable and then loads from a second,
while another CPU stores to the second variable and then loads from the
first. Preserving order requires nothing less than full barriers:

- /* See SB+mbonceonces.litmus. */
+ /* See SB+fencembonceonces.litmus. */
void CPU0(void)
{
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/README b/tools/memory-model/README
index 734f7feaa5dc..ee987ce20aae 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/README
+++ b/tools/memory-model/README
@@ -35,13 +35,13 @@ BASIC USAGE: HERD7
The memory model is used, in conjunction with "herd7", to exhaustively
explore the state space of small litmus tests.

-For example, to run SB+mbonceonces.litmus against the memory model:
+For example, to run SB+fencembonceonces.litmus against the memory model:

- $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+ $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus

Here is the corresponding output:

- Test SB+mbonceonces Allowed
+ Test SB+fencembonceonces Allowed
States 3
0:r0=0; 1:r0=1;
0:r0=1; 1:r0=0;
@@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ Here is the corresponding output:
Witnesses
Positive: 0 Negative: 3
Condition exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0)
- Observation SB+mbonceonces Never 0 3
- Time SB+mbonceonces 0.01
+ Observation SB+fencembonceonces Never 0 3
+ Time SB+fencembonceonces 0.01
Hash=d66d99523e2cac6b06e66f4c995ebb48

The "Positive: 0 Negative: 3" and the "Never 0 3" each indicate that
@@ -67,16 +67,16 @@ BASIC USAGE: KLITMUS7
The "klitmus7" tool converts a litmus test into a Linux kernel module,
which may then be loaded and run.

-For example, to run SB+mbonceonces.litmus against hardware:
+For example, to run SB+fencembonceonces.litmus against hardware:

$ mkdir mymodules
- $ klitmus7 -o mymodules litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+ $ klitmus7 -o mymodules litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
$ cd mymodules ; make
$ sudo sh run.sh

The corresponding output includes:

- Test SB+mbonceonces Allowed
+ Test SB+fencembonceonces Allowed
Histogram (3 states)
644580 :>0:r0=1; 1:r0=0;
644328 :>0:r0=0; 1:r0=1;
@@ -86,8 +86,8 @@ The corresponding output includes:
Positive: 0, Negative: 2000000
Condition exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0) is NOT validated
Hash=d66d99523e2cac6b06e66f4c995ebb48
- Observation SB+mbonceonces Never 0 2000000
- Time SB+mbonceonces 0.16
+ Observation SB+fencembonceonces Never 0 2000000
+ Time SB+fencembonceonces 0.16

The "Positive: 0 Negative: 2000000" and the "Never 0 2000000" indicate
that during two million trials, the state specified in this litmus
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
similarity index 95%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
index 98a3716efa37..e729d2776e89 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce
+C IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce

(*
* Result: Never
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus
similarity index 95%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus
index de6708229dd1..4727f5aaf03b 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce
+C LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce

(*
* Result: Never
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
similarity index 91%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
index c078f38ff27a..a273da9faa6d 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce
+C MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce

(*
* Result: Never
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+mbonceonces.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+fencembonceonces.litmus
similarity index 95%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+mbonceonces.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+fencembonceonces.litmus
index a0e884ad2132..222a0b850b4a 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+mbonceonces.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+fencembonceonces.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C R+mbonceonces
+C R+fencembonceonces

(*
* Result: Never
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
index 00140aaf58b7..4581ec2d3c57 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ CoWW+poonceonce.litmus
Test of write-write coherence, that is, whether or not two
successive writes to the same variable are ordered.

-IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
+IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
Test of independent reads from independent writes with smp_mb()
between each pairs of reads. In other words, is smp_mb()
sufficient to cause two different reading processes to agree on
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce.litmus
Can a release-acquire chain order a prior store against
a later load?

-LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus
+LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus
Does a control dependency and an smp_mb() suffice for the
load-buffering litmus test, where each process reads from one
of two variables then writes to the other?
@@ -88,14 +88,14 @@ MP+porevlocks.litmus
As below, but with the first access of the writer process
and the second access of reader process protected by a lock.

-MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus
+MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
Does a smp_wmb() (between the stores) and an smp_rmb() (between
the loads) suffice for the message-passing litmus test, where one
process writes data and then a flag, and the other process reads
the flag and then the data. (This is similar to the ISA2 tests,
but with two processes instead of three.)

-R+mbonceonces.litmus
+R+fencembonceonces.litmus
This is the fully ordered (via smp_mb()) version of one of
the classic counterintuitive litmus tests that illustrates the
effects of store propagation delays.
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ R+mbonceonces.litmus
R+poonceonces.litmus
As above, but without the smp_mb() invocations.

-SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
This is the fully ordered (again, via smp_mb() version of store
buffering, which forms the core of Dekker's mutual-exclusion
algorithm.
@@ -123,12 +123,12 @@ SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus
S+poonceonces.litmus
As below, but without the smp_wmb() and acquire load.

-S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
+S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
Can a smp_wmb(), instead of a release, and an acquire order
a prior store against a subsequent store?

WRC+poonceonces+Once.litmus
-WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus
+WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus
These two are members of an extension of the MP litmus-test
class in which the first write is moved to a separate process.
The second is forbidden because smp_store_release() is
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus
As above, but with smp_mb__after_spinlock() immediately
following the spin_lock().

-Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce.litmus
+Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus
Is the ordering provided by a release-acquire chain sufficient
to make ordering apparent to accesses by a process that does
not participate in that release-acquire chain?
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
similarity index 90%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
index c53350205d28..18479823cd6c 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce
+C S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce

(*
* Result: Never
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
similarity index 95%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
index 74b874ffa8da..ed5fff18d223 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C SB+mbonceonces
+C SB+fencembonceonces

(*
* Result: Never
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus
similarity index 93%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus
index ad3448b941e6..e9947250d7de 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once
+C WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once

(*
* Result: Never
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus
similarity index 94%
rename from tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce.litmus
rename to tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus
index a20fc3fafb53..88e70b87a683 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce.litmus
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-C Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce
+C Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce

(*
* Result: Sometimes

Next message: Colin Ian King: "Re: [PATCH] nfsd: fix memory leak of async_copy"
Previous message: Gustavo Pimentel: "[PATCH v12 05/12] PCI: dwc: Rework MSI callbacks handler"
In reply to: Paul E. McKenney: "[PATCH memory-model 14/14] tools/memory-model: Rename litmus tests to comply to norm7"
Next in thread: Paul E. McKenney: "[PATCH memory-model 11/14] locking: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]