Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 09:01:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney " <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Dan Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        paul.walmsley@sifive.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/3] tools/memory-model: litmus: Add two tests for
 unlock(A)+lock(B) ordering
Message-ID: <YXenrNeS+IaSDwvU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211025145416.698183-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20211025145416.698183-4-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211025145416.698183-4-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:54:16PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..955b9c7cdc7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +C LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce
> +
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
> + * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, all accesses
> + * in the first must execute before any accesses in the second, even if
> + * the critical sections are protected by different locks.

One small nit; the above "all accesses" reads as if:

	spin_lock(s);
	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
	spin_unlock(s);
	spin_lock(t);
	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	spin_unlock(t);

would also work, except of course that's the one reorder allowed by TSO.

> + *)
> +
> +{}
> +
> +P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
> +{
> +	int r1;
> +
> +	spin_lock(s);
> +	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> +	spin_unlock(s);
> +	spin_lock(t);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> +	spin_unlock(t);
> +}
> +
> +P1(int *x, int *y)
> +{
> +	int r2;
> +
> +	r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> +}
> +
> +exists (0:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=1)