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:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:20:04 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr,
        akiyks@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tools/memory-model] Add s390.{cfg,cat}
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180328134232.GA29274@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180328134813.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180328142004.GR3675@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:48:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:42:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > The prototype patch shown below provides files required to allow herd7 to
> > evaluate C-language litmus tests for the multicopy-atomic TSO ordering
> > provided by s390.  
> 
> There really isn't anything s390 specific here is there? That is, would
> this not equally work for x86 and sparc, both of which are similarly TSO
> ?

As I understand it, there is a difference.  The difference from TSO
systems such as x86 is that s390 is multicopy atomic as well as TSO.
In contrast, x86 is TSO as well as other-multicopy-atomic.  I must defer
to Martin and Christian for details -- this should be interpreted as a
feeble first attempt on my part, not any sort of IBM-approved definition
of s390.  ;-)

> Given that, should this not be called TSO instead of s390 ?

I agree completely with a single tso.cfg, TSO.cfg, or whatever name,
as opposed to a bunch of identical files for x86, SPARC, ...

							Thanx, Paul