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;
Subject: Re: Trial of conflict resolution of Alan's patch
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        parri.andrea@gmail.com, 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>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.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>
From:   Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fe361fba-d6ec-3a70-6ab9-e148bccb5833@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:51:11 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180215192914.GA3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2018/02/15 11:29:14 -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.
> 

Hi,

My forward-port patch doesn't apply to the "lkmm" branch.
It looks like "linux-kernel-hardware.cat" is intentionally omitted there.
Am I guessing right?

If this is the case, I can prepare a patch to be applied to "lkmm".
But I can't compose a proper change log. So I'd like Alan to post
a patch with my SOB appended. Does this approach sound reasonable?

      Thanks, Akira

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