This directory contains the following litmus tests:
|
|
CoRR+poonceonce+Once.litmus
|
Test of read-read coherence, that is, whether or not two
|
successive reads from the same variable are ordered.
|
|
CoRW+poonceonce+Once.litmus
|
Test of read-write coherence, that is, whether or not a read
|
from a given variable followed by a write to that same variable
|
are ordered.
|
|
CoWR+poonceonce+Once.litmus
|
Test of write-read coherence, that is, whether or not a write
|
to a given variable followed by a read from that same variable
|
are ordered.
|
|
CoWW+poonceonce.litmus
|
Test of write-write coherence, that is, whether or not two
|
successive writes to the same variable are ordered.
|
|
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
|
the order of a pair of writes, where each write is to a different
|
variable by a different process? This litmus test is forbidden
|
by LKMM's propagation rule.
|
|
IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
|
Test of independent reads from independent writes with nothing
|
between each pairs of reads. In other words, is anything at all
|
needed to cause two different reading processes to agree on the
|
order of a pair of writes, where each write is to a different
|
variable by a different process?
|
|
ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus
|
Tests whether the ordering provided by a lock-protected S
|
litmus test is visible to an external process whose accesses are
|
separated by smp_mb(). This addition of an external process to
|
S is otherwise known as ISA2.
|
|
ISA2+poonceonces.litmus
|
As below, but with store-release replaced with WRITE_ONCE()
|
and load-acquire replaced with READ_ONCE().
|
|
ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce.litmus
|
Can a release-acquire chain order a prior store against
|
a later load?
|
|
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?
|
|
LB+poacquireonce+pooncerelease.litmus
|
Does a release-acquire pair suffice for the load-buffering
|
litmus test, where each process reads from one of two variables then
|
writes to the other?
|
|
LB+poonceonces.litmus
|
As above, but with store-release replaced with WRITE_ONCE()
|
and load-acquire replaced with READ_ONCE().
|
|
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.
|
|
MP+poonceonces.litmus
|
As below, but without the smp_rmb() and smp_wmb().
|
|
MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce.litmus
|
As below, but with a release-acquire chain.
|
|
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+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+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.
|
|
R+poonceonces.litmus
|
As above, but without the smp_mb() invocations.
|
|
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.
|
|
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+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+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
|
A-cumulative in LKMM.
|
|
Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus
|
Is the ordering provided by a spin_unlock() and a subsequent
|
spin_lock() sufficient to make ordering apparent to accesses
|
by a process not holding the lock?
|
|
Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus
|
As above, but with smp_mb__after_spinlock() immediately
|
following the spin_lock().
|
|
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?
|
|
A great many more litmus tests are available here:
|
|
https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus
|
