Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 4 Feb 2018 01:16:01 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, elena.reshetova@intel.com, mhocko@suse.com,
        akiyks@gmail.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL tools] Linux kernel memory model
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180203084809.GE3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802031708380.29515-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802031708380.29515-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180204091601.GO3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 05:10:06PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > Please see below for an initial patch to this effect.  This activity
> > proved to be more productive than expected for these tests, which certainly
> > supports our assertion that locking needs more testing...
> > 
> > MP+polocks.litmus
> > MP+porevlocks.litmus
> > 
> > 	These are allowed by the current model, which surprised me a bit,
> > 	given that even powerpc would forbid them.  Is the rationale
> > 	that a lock-savvy compiler could pull accesses into the lock's
> > 	critical section and then reorder those accesses?  Or does this
> > 	constitute a bug in our model of locking?
> > 
> > 	(And these were allowed when I wrote recipes.txt, embarrassingly
> > 	enough...)
> > 
> > Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus
> > 
> > 	This was forbidden when I wrote recipes.txt, but now is allowed.
> > 	The header comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock() makes it pretty
> > 	clear that it must be forbidden.  So this one is a bug in our
> > 	model of locking.
> 
> I just tried testing these under the most recent version of herd, and 
> all three were forbidden.

And they do for me as well once I upgraded to the most recent version of
herd.  Whew!!!

Boy, we weren't kidding when we said that you need to us the latest
and greatest herd7, now were we?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul