On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 06:45:32PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Maybe it's me who misunderstand Daniel's words. But my understanding is
> that riscv people are on a debate about whether their "RCpc" atomic
> instructions need to be more strict: release+acquire pair orders two
> writes. And I thought
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:15:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:58:47PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > And yes, if we go with a purely RCpc interpretation of acquire and
> > > release, then I don't believe the writes in the previous critical
> > > section would be order
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> > And yes, if we go with a purely RCpc interpretation of acquire and
> > release, then I don't believe the writes in the previous critical
> > section would be ordered
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:58:47PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > And yes, if we go with a purely RCpc interpretation of acquire and
> > release, then I don't believe the writes in the previous critical
> > section would be ordered with the writes in the subsequent critical
> > section. That's reall
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> And yes, if we go with a purely RCpc interpretation of acquire and
> release, then I don't believe the writes in the previous critical
> section would be ordered with the writes in the subsequent critical
> section.
Excuse my ignoran
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:42:08PM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> On 2/21/2018 9:27 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:13:57PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:23:49AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:25:10PM -0800, Paul E. McK
On 2/21/2018 9:27 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:13:57PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:23:49AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:25:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
From: Alan Stern
This commit adds a litmus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:13:57PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:23:49AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:25:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: Alan Stern
> > >
> > > This commit adds a litmus test in which P0() and P1() form a loc
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:23:49AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:25:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Alan Stern
> >
> > This commit adds a litmus test in which P0() and P1() form a lock-based S
> > litmus test, with the addition of P2(), which observes P0()'s
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:25:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: Alan Stern
>
> This commit adds a litmus test in which P0() and P1() form a lock-based S
> litmus test, with the addition of P2(), which observes P0()'s and P1()'s
> accesses with a full memory barrier but without the lock.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:27:04PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > +ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus
> > > > + Tests whether the ordering provided by a lock-protected S litmus
> > >
> > > Call it an ISA2 litmus test, not an S litmu
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:38:35PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:50:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:09:00AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:50:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:09:00AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus
> > > + Tests whether the ordering provided by a lock-protected S litmus
> >
> > Call it an ISA2 litmus test, not an S litmus test!
>
> Given the structure of the test, the relationship to S is importa
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:50:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:09:00AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Alan Stern
> > > >
> > > > This commit adds a litmu
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:09:00AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > From: Alan Stern
> > >
> > > This commit adds a litmus test in which P0() and P1() form a lock-based S
> > > litmus test, with th
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:09:00AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > From: Alan Stern
> >
> > This commit adds a litmus test in which P0() and P1() form a lock-based S
> > litmus test, with the addition of P2(), which observes P0()'s and P1()'s
>
> Wh
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: Alan Stern
>
> This commit adds a litmus test in which P0() and P1() form a lock-based S
> litmus test, with the addition of P2(), which observes P0()'s and P1()'s
Why do you call this an "S" litmus test? Isn't ISA2 a better
description?
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
