Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp1066320wrg; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:29:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227YQxJzjedM6QB/rikuwgevQ3iFbNHClA8OwhjS5B8blodA7GX7h0s8JMrMpOrFyExFqhcI X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a8a:: with SMTP id w10-v6mr4058112plp.201.1519241371728; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:29:31 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519241371; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=pWZWn2LWOOVFzW6eNooSInh1hT8ofbUpybAp0JoJphva2j1Y1hekG+jzU1Oezmj865 6MQyj2uqu1/dDy2XEht9Faav39qB337S646oUz6ItI09/9iVr1wkZFj7KbdMnNnsSqeE YWCUzhnQGJllQ0Dtlz1gI4fr0M7j8nyjOef19ZpQZCxSt9jl5+PMdKV5ZrK6xYdV05wm eqy/AYC3d37s9sWtjX5Q0D1E7by52DU3aB6JRr1mV4Xg21RxcHnFjohhtJPBWKWp4ae7 d6DUGyVc6U9R50J3Ue52YmQo/wV4SWSgpgg1Ev0CimZVtsiTiWEdi5sXfgSby7PuspAo /JdQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=vJZbQtwqiXI7bnn6Jq7HLpjEvVlRW0l1kjUf7CROg2k=; b=FEUgsv8mJ4NsvvQeKlHDMPZ2f/4gpd6qw4m5o7Cg/QHl4dbdlA7hCqkJ12/ns9r2vn GVopOuz9k0V8Fo0S2jWjdsQ+TLYVuTi72QFe/oEmteRfubHT9ih+4lLJZIYl4EAXe52l Mhc6y5gj3RRhpP/5voNEvgu8gah5jxXs7k9MVvZIq7HBrZ3ucED8wxlszn+b3yEuxHi1 gQAzy+WEhHCylMEjgdecnOwCJEmgjcQxZGu8apGx9C4hoI2skSHFMvfulg9Ceb6lGXJM Q6areSkL8pS0D1seoR85F+3HGZMmkiwZscnOqzaISkGHMzm0Cp9R1DsvCmlhkxZyr+ej OHfQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 70-v6si154308ple.147.2018.02.21.11.29.16; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:29:31 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751902AbeBUT1G (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:27:06 -0500 Received: from iolanthe.rowland.org ([192.131.102.54]:34380 "HELO iolanthe.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751449AbeBUT1F (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:27:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 5951 invoked by uid 2102); 21 Feb 2018 14:27:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Feb 2018 14:27:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:27:04 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@iolanthe.rowland.org To: "Paul E. McKenney" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/lkmm 10/12] tools/memory-model: Add a S lock-based external-view litmus test In-Reply-To: <20180221190543.GM3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > +ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus > > > + Tests whether the ordering provided by a lock-protected S litmus > > > > Call it an ISA2 litmus test, not an S litmus test! > > Given the structure of the test, the relationship to S is important > because it helps motivate why anyone might care. But yes, having ISA2 > only in the filename is a bit obtuse. How about the following? > > ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus > Tests whether the ordering provided by a lock-protected S > litmus test is visible to an external process whose accesses are > separated by smp_mb(). This addition of an external process to > S is otherwise known as ISA2. Okay, that's somewhat better. However, I still don't understand why you think of this as a form of S. In S, the first variable written by P0 is the same as the variable written by P1. In this test, no variable other than the spinlock gets written twice. To me that seems like a pretty fundamental difference. Alan