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:   Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:41:35 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@inria.fr, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Trial of conflict resolution of Alan's patch
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <fa35db31-7a73-4865-1505-5378dcb2a0f8@gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802151246190.1286-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20180215192914.GA3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180215220539.GA5363@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180215220539.GA5363@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180215224135.GC3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:05:39PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:51:56PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So, I attempted to rebase the patch to current (somewhat old) master of
> > > > https://github.com/aparri/memory-model. Why? Because the lkmm branch
> > > > in Paul's -rcu tree doesn't have linux-kernel-hardware.cat.
> > > > 
> > > > However, after this change, Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce still
> > > > has the result "Sometimes". I must have done something wrong in the
> > > > conflict resolution.
> > > > 
> > > > Note: I have almost no idea what this patch is doing. I'm just hoping
> > > > to give a starting point of a discussion.
> > > 
> > > Yes, that litmus test gives "Sometimes" both with and without the 
> > > patch.  But consider instead this slightly changed version of that 
> > > test, in which P2 reads Z instead of writing it:
> > > 
> > > C Z6.0-variant
> > > 
> > > {}
> > > 
> > > P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
> > > {
> > > 	spin_lock(mylock);
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> > > 	spin_unlock(mylock);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P1(int *y, int *z, spinlock_t *mylock)
> > > {
> > > 	int r0;
> > > 
> > > 	spin_lock(mylock);
> > > 	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
> > > 	spin_unlock(mylock);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P2(int *x, int *z)
> > > {
> > > 	int r1;
> > > 	int r2;
> > > 
> > > 	r2 = READ_ONCE(*z);
> > > 	smp_mb();
> > > 	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r2=1 /\ 2:r1=0)
> > > 
> > > Without the patch, this test gives "Sometimes"; with the patch it gives 
> > > "Never".  That is what I thought Paul was talking about originally.  
> > > 
> > > Sorry if my misunderstanding caused too much confusion for other 
> > > people.
> > 
> > Ah, I did indeed get confused.  I have changed the "Result:" for
> > Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus back to "Never", as in
> > the patch below (which I merged into the patch adding all the
> > comments).
> > 
> > I have added the above test as ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus,
> > with the Result: of Sometimes with you (Alan) as author and with your
> > Signed-off-by -- please let me know if you would prefer some other
> > approach.
> > 
> > Please change the Result: when sending the proposed patch.  Or please let
> > me know if you would like me to apply the forward-port that Akira sent,
> > in which case I will add the Result: change to that patch.  Or for that
> > matter, Akira might repost his forward-port of your patch with this change.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > commit b2950420e1154131c0667f1ac58666bad3a06a69
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date:   Thu Feb 15 10:35:25 2018 -0800
> > 
> >     fixup! EXP litmus_tests:  Add comments explaining tests' purposes
> >     
> >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus
> > index fad47258a3e3..95890669859b 100644
> > --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus
> > +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus
> > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> >  C Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce
> >  
> >  (*
> > - * Result: Never
> > + * Result: Somtimes
> 
> nit: s/Somtimes/Sometimes

Good catch, fixed!

							Thanx, Paul

>   Andrea
> 
> 
> >   *
> >   * This example demonstrates that a pair of accesses made by different
> >   * processes each while holding a given lock will not necessarily be
> > 
>