From c438b7d860b4c1acb4ebff6d8d946d593ca5fe1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Boqun Feng Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 22:54:16 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: litmus: Add two tests for unlock(A)+lock(B) ordering The memory model has been updated to provide a stronger ordering guarantee for unlock(A)+lock(B) on the same CPU/thread. Therefore add two litmus tests describing this new guarantee, these tests are simple yet can clearly show the usage of the new guarantee, also they can serve as the self tests for the modification in the model. Co-developed-by: Alan Stern Signed-off-by: Alan Stern Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- ...LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ ...unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus | 33 +++++++++++++++++ tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README | 8 +++++ 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus 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 00000000000000..eb34123a6ffe04 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +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. Note: Even when a + * write executes before a read, their memory effects can be reordered from + * the viewpoint of another CPU (the kind of reordering 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) diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus new file mode 100644 index 00000000000000..2feb1398be7160 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +C MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce + +(* + * Result: Never + * + * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, stores in the + * first must propagate to each CPU before stores in the second do, even if + * the critical sections are protected by different locks. + *) + +{} + +P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y) +{ + spin_lock(s); + WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); + spin_unlock(s); + spin_lock(t); + WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); + spin_unlock(t); +} + +P1(int *x, int *y) +{ + int r1; + int r2; + + r1 = READ_ONCE(*y); + smp_rmb(); + r2 = READ_ONCE(*x); +} + +exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0) diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README index 681f9067fa9ede..d311a0ff1ae64f 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ LB+poonceonces.litmus As above, but with store-release replaced with WRITE_ONCE() and load-acquire replaced with READ_ONCE(). +LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus + Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a + load and a store? + MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus As below, but with rcu_assign_pointer() and an rcu_dereference(). @@ -90,6 +94,10 @@ MP+porevlocks.litmus As below, but with the first access of the writer process and the second access of reader process protected by a lock. +MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus + Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a + store and another store? + MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus Does a smp_wmb() (between the stores) and an smp_rmb() (between the loads) suffice for the message-passing litmus test, where one