On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more
like a variant on WWC and I couldn't really follow it).

I will revisit my WRC Linux example.  And yes, creating litmus tests
that use non-fake dependencies is still a bit of an undertaking.  :-/
I am sure that it will seem more natural with time and experience...

Hmmm...  You are quite right, I did do WWC.  I need to change cpu2()'s
last access from a store to a load to get WRC.  Plus the levels of
indirection definitely didn't match up, did they?

Nope, it was pretty baffling!

"It is a service that I provide."  ;-)

quoted

quoted

	struct foo {
		struct foo *next;
	};
	struct foo a;
	struct foo b;
	struct foo c = { &a };
	struct foo d = { &b };
	struct foo x = { &c };
	struct foo y = { &d };
	struct foo *r1, *r2, *r3;

	void cpu0(void)
	{
		WRITE_ONCE(x.next, &y);
	}

	void cpu1(void)
	{
		r1 = lockless_dereference(x.next);
		WRITE_ONCE(r1->next, &x);
	}

	void cpu2(void)
	{
		r2 = lockless_dereference(y.next);
		r3 = READ_ONCE(r2->next);
	}

In this case, it is legal to end the run with:

	r1 == &y && r2 == &x && r3 == &c

Please see below for a ppcmem litmus test.

So, did I get it right this time?  ;-)

The code above looks correct to me (in that it matches WRC+addrs),
but your litmus test:

quoted

PPC WRCnf+addrs
""
{
0:r2=x; 0:r3=y;
1:r2=x; 1:r3=y;
2:r2=x; 2:r3=y;
c=a; d=b; x=c; y=d;
}
 P0           | P1            | P2            ;
 stw r3,0(r2) | lwz r8,0(r2)  | lwz r8,0(r3)  ;
              | stw r2,0(r3)  | lwz r9,0(r8)  ;
exists
(1:r8=y /\ 2:r8=x /\ 2:r9=c)

Seems to be missing the address dependency on P1.

You are quite correct!  How about the following?

I think that's it!

quoted

As before, both herd and ppcmem say that the cycle is allowed, as
expected, given non-transitive ordering.  To prohibit the cycle, P1
needs a suitable memory-barrier instruction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPC WRCnf+addrs
""
{
0:r2=x; 0:r3=y;
1:r2=x; 1:r3=y;
2:r2=x; 2:r3=y;
c=a; d=b; x=c; y=d;
}
 P0           | P1            | P2            ;
 stw r3,0(r2) | lwz r8,0(r2)  | lwz r8,0(r3)  ;
              | stw r2,0(r8)  | lwz r9,0(r8)  ;
exists
(1:r8=y /\ 2:r8=x /\ 2:r9=c)

Agreed.

OK, thank you!  Would you agree that it would be good to replace the
current xor-based fake-dependency litmus tests with tests having real
dependencies?

							Thanx, Paul