aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorLuc Maranget <Luc.Maranget@inria.fr>2018-05-14 16:33:48 -0700
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>2018-05-15 08:11:17 +0200
commit15553dcbca0638de57047e79b9fb4ea77aa04db3 (patch)
treec8ea4191091b107a12b2e5bb1f35bb04a112fe04 /tools/memory-model/litmus-tests
parent2fb6ae162f25a9c3bc45663c479a2b15fb69e768 (diff)
downloadtip-15553dcbca0638de57047e79b9fb4ea77aa04db3.tar.gz
tip-15553dcbca0638de57047e79b9fb4ea77aa04db3.tar.xz
tip-15553dcbca0638de57047e79b9fb4ea77aa04db3.zip
tools/memory-model: Add model support for spin_is_locked()
This commit first adds a trivial macro for spin_is_locked() to linux-kernel.def. It also adds cat code for enumerating all possible matches of lock write events (set LKW) with islocked events returning true (set RL, for Read from Lock), and unlock write events (set UL) with islocked events returning false (set RU, for Read from Unlock). Note that this intentionally does not model uniprocessor kernels (CONFIG_SMP=n) built with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=n, in which spin_is_locked() unconditionally returns zero. It also adds a pair of litmus tests demonstrating the minimal ordering provided by spin_is_locked() in conjunction with spin_lock(). Will Deacon noted that this minimal ordering happens on ARMv8: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180226162426.GB17158@arm.com Notice that herd7 installations strictly older than version 7.49 do not handle the new constructs. Signed-off-by: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Luc Maranget <Luc.Maranget@inria.fr> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526340837-12222-10-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/memory-model/litmus-tests')
-rw-r--r--tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus35
-rw-r--r--tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus34
-rw-r--r--tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README10
3 files changed, 79 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..50f4d62bbf0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+C MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Do spinlocks combined with smp_mb__after_spinlock() provide order
+ * to outside observers using spin_is_locked() to sense the lock-held
+ * state, ordered by acquire? Note that when the first spin_is_locked()
+ * returns false and the second true, we know that the smp_load_acquire()
+ * executed before the lock was acquired (loosely speaking).
+ *)
+
+{
+}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *lo, int *x)
+{
+ spin_lock(lo);
+ smp_mb__after_spinlock();
+ WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+ spin_unlock(lo);
+}
+
+P1(spinlock_t *lo, int *x)
+{
+ int r1;
+ int r2;
+ int r3;
+
+ r1 = smp_load_acquire(x);
+ r2 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+ r3 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+}
+
+exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0 /\ 1:r3=1)
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..abf81e7a0895
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+C MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * Do spinlocks provide order to outside observers using spin_is_locked()
+ * to sense the lock-held state, ordered by acquire? Note that when the
+ * first spin_is_locked() returns false and the second true, we know that
+ * the smp_load_acquire() executed before the lock was acquired (loosely
+ * speaking).
+ *)
+
+{
+}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *lo, int *x)
+{
+ spin_lock(lo);
+ WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+ spin_unlock(lo);
+}
+
+P1(spinlock_t *lo, int *x)
+{
+ int r1;
+ int r2;
+ int r3;
+
+ r1 = smp_load_acquire(x);
+ r2 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+ r3 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+}
+
+exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0 /\ 1:r3=1)
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
index 04096fb8b8d9..6919909bbd0f 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
@@ -63,6 +63,16 @@ LB+poonceonces.litmus
MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus
As below, but with rcu_assign_pointer() and an rcu_dereference().
+MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus
+ Protect the access with a lock and an smp_mb__after_spinlock()
+ in one process, and use an acquire load followed by a pair of
+ spin_is_locked() calls in the other process.
+
+MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus
+ Protect the access with a lock in one process, and use an
+ acquire load followed by a pair of spin_is_locked() calls
+ in the other process.
+
MP+polocks.litmus
As below, but with the second access of the writer process
and the first access of reader process protected by a lock.