summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README')
-rw-r--r--tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README25
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
index 17eb9a8c222d..4581ec2d3c57 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
+++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ CoWW+poonceonce.litmus
Test of write-write coherence, that is, whether or not two
successive writes to the same variable are ordered.
-IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
+IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
Test of independent reads from independent writes with smp_mb()
between each pairs of reads. In other words, is smp_mb()
sufficient to cause two different reading processes to agree on
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce.litmus
Can a release-acquire chain order a prior store against
a later load?
-LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus
+LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus
Does a control dependency and an smp_mb() suffice for the
load-buffering litmus test, where each process reads from one
of two variables then writes to the other?
@@ -88,14 +88,14 @@ 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+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus
+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
process writes data and then a flag, and the other process reads
the flag and then the data. (This is similar to the ISA2 tests,
but with two processes instead of three.)
-R+mbonceonces.litmus
+R+fencembonceonces.litmus
This is the fully ordered (via smp_mb()) version of one of
the classic counterintuitive litmus tests that illustrates the
effects of store propagation delays.
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ R+mbonceonces.litmus
R+poonceonces.litmus
As above, but without the smp_mb() invocations.
-SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
This is the fully ordered (again, via smp_mb() version of store
buffering, which forms the core of Dekker's mutual-exclusion
algorithm.
@@ -111,15 +111,24 @@ SB+mbonceonces.litmus
SB+poonceonces.litmus
As above, but without the smp_mb() invocations.
+SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus
+ This litmus test demonstrates that LKMM is not fully multicopy
+ atomic. (Neither is it other multicopy atomic.) This litmus test
+ also demonstrates the "locations" debugging aid, which designates
+ additional registers and locations to be printed out in the dump
+ of final states in the herd7 output. Without the "locations"
+ statement, only those registers and locations mentioned in the
+ "exists" clause will be printed.
+
S+poonceonces.litmus
As below, but without the smp_wmb() and acquire load.
-S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
+S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
Can a smp_wmb(), instead of a release, and an acquire order
a prior store against a subsequent store?
WRC+poonceonces+Once.litmus
-WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once.litmus
+WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus
These two are members of an extension of the MP litmus-test
class in which the first write is moved to a separate process.
The second is forbidden because smp_store_release() is
@@ -134,7 +143,7 @@ Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus
As above, but with smp_mb__after_spinlock() immediately
following the spin_lock().
-Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce.litmus
+Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus
Is the ordering provided by a release-acquire chain sufficient
to make ordering apparent to accesses by a process that does
not participate in that release-acquire chain?