* 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?
+ * process? This litmus test exercises LKMM's "propagation" rule.
*)
{}
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?
+ 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
WRC+poonceonces+Once.litmus
WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+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.
+ 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
*
* This litmus test is an extension of the message-passing pattern, where
* the first write is moved to a separate process. Because it features
- * a release and a read memory barrier, it should be forbidden.
+ * a release and a read memory barrier, it should be forbidden. More
+ * specifically, this litmus test is forbidden because smp_store_release()
+ * is A-cumulative in LKMM.
*)
{}