Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 22 May 2020 10:43:52 -0700 | | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | | Subject | Re: Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests |
| |
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:44:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:38:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > Just wanted to call your attention to some pretty cool and pretty serious > > > litmus tests that Andrii did as part of his BPF ring-buffer work: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200517195727.279322-3-andriin@fb.com/ > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I find: > > > > smp_wmb() > > smp_store_release() > > > > a _very_ weird construct. What is that supposed to even do? > > Indeed, it looks like one or the other of those is redundant (depending > on the context).
Probably. Peter instead asked what it was supposed to even do. ;-)
> Also, what use is a spinlock that is accessed in only one thread?
Multiple writers synchronize via the spinlock in this case. I am guessing that his larger 16-hour test contended this spinlock.
> Finally, I doubt that these tests belong under tools/memory-model. > Shouldn't they go under the new Documentation/ directory for litmus > tests? And shouldn't the patch update a README file?
Agreed, and I responded to that effect to his original patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200522003433.GG2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72/
Thanx, Paul
|  |