Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:41:38 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test) |
| |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:03:35AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 09:17:04PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 09:15:15PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Maybe we don't. Please test the patch below; I think it will do what > > > you want -- and it doesn't rule out nesting. > > > > It works like a champ on manual/kernel/C-srcu*.litmus in the litmus > > repository on github, good show and thank you!!! > > > > I will make more tests, and am checking this against the rest of the > > litmus tests in the repo, but in the meantime would you be willing to > > have me add your Signed-off-by? > > I'll email a real patch submission in the not-too-distant future, > assuming you don't find any problems with the new code.
Sounds good!
The current state is that last night's testing found a difference only for C-srcu-nest-5.litmus, in which case your version gives the correct answer and mainline is wrong. There were a couple of broken tests, which I fixed and a test involving spin_unlock_wait(), which is at this point perma-broken due to the Linux kernel no longer having such a thing. (Other than its re-introduction into i915, but they define it as a spin_lock_irq() followed by a spin_unlock_irq(), so why worry?) There were also a few timeouts.
I intend to run the longer tests overnight.
I have not yet come up with a good heuristic to auto-classify automatically generated tests involving SRCU, so I cannot justify making you wait on me to get my act together on that.
Thanx, Paul
| |