Resguardo inicial

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+*.litmus.*

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoRR+poonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+C CoRR+poonceonce+Once
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Test of read-read coherence, that is, whether or not two successive
+ * reads from the same variable are ordered.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoRW+poonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+C CoRW+poonceonce+Once
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Test of read-write coherence, that is, whether or not a read from
+ * a given variable and a later write to that same variable are ordered.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
+}
+
+exists (x=2 /\ 0:r0=2)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoWR+poonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+C CoWR+poonceonce+Once
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Test of write-read coherence, that is, whether or not a write to a
+ * given variable and a later read from that same variable are ordered.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+P1(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
+}
+
+exists (x=1 /\ 0:r0=2)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/CoWW+poonceonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+C CoWW+poonceonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Test of write-write coherence, that is, whether or not two successive
+ * writes to the same variable are ordered.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
+}
+
+exists (x=1)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+C IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * 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 exercises LKMM's "propagation" rule.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	smp_mb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+}
+
+P2(int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P3(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	smp_mb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0 /\ 3:r0=1 /\ 3:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+C IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * 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?
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+}
+
+P2(int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P3(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0 /\ 3:r0=1 /\ 3:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+C ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This test shows that write-write ordering provided by locks
+ * (in P0() and P1()) is visible to external process P2().
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
+{
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P1(int *y, int *z, spinlock_t *mylock)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *z)
+{
+	int r1;
+	int r2;
+
+	r2 = READ_ONCE(*z);
+	smp_mb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r2=1 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ISA2+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+C ISA2+poonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * Given a release-acquire chain ordering the first process's store
+ * against the last process's load, is ordering preserved if all of the
+ * smp_store_release() invocations are replaced by WRITE_ONCE() and all
+ * of the smp_load_acquire() invocations are replaced by READ_ONCE()?
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *y, int *z)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *z)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*z);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r0=1 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+C ISA2+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+poacquireonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that a release-acquire chain suffices
+ * to order P0()'s initial write against P2()'s final read.  The reason
+ * that the release-acquire chain suffices is because in all but one
+ * case (P2() to P0()), each process reads from the preceding process's
+ * write.  In memory-model-speak, there is only one non-reads-from
+ * (AKA non-rf) link, so release-acquire is all that is needed.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	smp_store_release(y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *y, int *z)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = smp_load_acquire(y);
+	smp_store_release(z, 1);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *z)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = smp_load_acquire(z);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r0=1 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+C LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that lightweight ordering suffices for
+ * the load-buffering pattern, in other words, preventing all processes
+ * reading from the preceding process's write.  In this example, the
+ * combination of a control dependency and a full memory barrier are enough
+ * to do the trick.  (But the full memory barrier could be replaced with
+ * another control dependency and order would still be maintained.)
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	if (r0)
+		WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	smp_mb();
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists (0:r0=1 /\ 1:r0=1)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+poacquireonce+pooncerelease.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+C LB+poacquireonce+pooncerelease
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * 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?
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	smp_store_release(y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = smp_load_acquire(y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists (0:r0=1 /\ 1:r0=1)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+C LB+poonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * Can the counter-intuitive outcome for the load-buffering pattern
+ * be prevented even with no explicit ordering?
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists (0:r0=1 /\ 1:r0=1)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+C LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, all accesses
+ * in the first must execute before any accesses in the second, even if the
+ * critical sections are protected by different locks.  Note: Even when a
+ * write executes before a read, their memory effects can be reordered from
+ * the viewpoint of another CPU (the kind of reordering allowed by TSO).
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r1;
+
+	spin_lock(s);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	spin_unlock(s);
+	spin_lock(t);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	spin_unlock(t);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r2;
+
+	r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists (0:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=1)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+C MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() provide
+ * sufficient ordering for the message-passing pattern.  However, it
+ * is usually better to use smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire().
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *buf, int *flag) // Producer
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*buf, 1);
+	smp_wmb();
+	WRITE_ONCE(*flag, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *buf, int *flag) // Consumer
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*flag);
+	smp_rmb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*buf);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+C MP+onceassign+derefonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that rcu_assign_pointer() and
+ * rcu_dereference() suffice to ensure that an RCU reader will not see
+ * pre-initialization garbage when it traverses an RCU-protected data
+ * structure containing a newly inserted element.
+ *)
+
+{
+p=y;
+}
+
+P0(int *x, int **p) // Producer
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	rcu_assign_pointer(*p, x);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int **p) // Consumer
+{
+	int *r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	r0 = rcu_dereference(*p);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=x /\ 1:r1=0) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+C MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Do spinlocks combined with smp_mb__after_spinlock() provide order
+ * to outside observers using spin_is_locked() to sense the lock-held
+ * state, ordered by acquire?  Note that when the first spin_is_locked()
+ * returns false and the second true, we know that the smp_load_acquire()
+ * executed before the lock was acquired (loosely speaking).
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *lo, int *x) // Producer
+{
+	spin_lock(lo);
+	smp_mb__after_spinlock();
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	spin_unlock(lo);
+}
+
+P1(spinlock_t *lo, int *x) // Consumer
+{
+	int r1;
+	int r2;
+	int r3;
+
+	r1 = smp_load_acquire(x);
+	r2 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+	r3 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+}
+
+exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0 /\ 1:r3=1) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+C MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * Do spinlocks provide order to outside observers using spin_is_locked()
+ * to sense the lock-held state, ordered by acquire?  Note that when the
+ * first spin_is_locked() returns false and the second true, we know that
+ * the smp_load_acquire() executed before the lock was acquired (loosely
+ * speaking).
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *lo, int *x) // Producer
+{
+	spin_lock(lo);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	spin_unlock(lo);
+}
+
+P1(spinlock_t *lo, int *x) // Consumer
+{
+	int r1;
+	int r2;
+	int r3;
+
+	r1 = smp_load_acquire(x);
+	r2 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+	r3 = spin_is_locked(lo);
+}
+
+exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0 /\ 1:r3=1) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polocks.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+C MP+polocks
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates how lock acquisitions and releases can
+ * stand in for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release(), respectively.
+ * In other words, when holding a given lock (or indeed after releasing a
+ * given lock), a CPU is not only guaranteed to see the accesses that other
+ * CPUs made while previously holding that lock, it is also guaranteed
+ * to see all prior accesses by those other CPUs.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *buf, int *flag, spinlock_t *mylock) // Producer
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*buf, 1);
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*flag, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P1(int *buf, int *flag, spinlock_t *mylock) // Consumer
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*flag);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*buf);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+C MP+poonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * Can the counter-intuitive message-passing outcome be prevented with
+ * no ordering at all?
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *buf, int *flag) // Producer
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*buf, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*flag, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *buf, int *flag) // Consumer
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*flag);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*buf);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+C MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that smp_store_release() and
+ * smp_load_acquire() provide sufficient ordering for the message-passing
+ * pattern.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *buf, int *flag) // Producer
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*buf, 1);
+	smp_store_release(flag, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *buf, int *flag) // Consumer
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = smp_load_acquire(flag);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*buf);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+porevlocks.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+C MP+porevlocks
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates how lock acquisitions and releases can
+ * stand in for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release(), respectively.
+ * In other words, when holding a given lock (or indeed after releasing a
+ * given lock), a CPU is not only guaranteed to see the accesses that other
+ * CPUs made while previously holding that lock, it is also guaranteed to
+ * see all prior accesses by those other CPUs.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *buf, int *flag, spinlock_t *mylock) // Consumer
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*flag);
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*buf);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P1(int *buf, int *flag, spinlock_t *mylock) // Producer
+{
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*buf, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*flag, 1);
+}
+
+exists (0:r0=1 /\ 0:r1=0) (* Bad outcome. *)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+C MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, stores in the
+ * first must propagate to each CPU before stores in the second do, even if
+ * the critical sections are protected by different locks.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
+{
+	spin_lock(s);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	spin_unlock(s);
+	spin_lock(t);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	spin_unlock(t);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r1;
+	int r2;
+
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	smp_rmb();
+	r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+fencembonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+C R+fencembonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * 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.  Note that weakening either of the barriers would
+ * cause the resulting test to be allowed.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	smp_mb();
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 2);
+	smp_mb();
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (y=2 /\ 1:r0=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+C R+poonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * This is the unordered (thus lacking smp_mb()) version of one of the
+ * classic counterintuitive litmus tests that illustrates the effects of
+ * store propagation delays.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 2);
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (y=2 /\ 1:r0=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README

@@ -0,0 +1,261 @@
+============
+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().
+
+LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
+	Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a
+	load and a store?
+
+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+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
+	Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a
+	store and another store?
+
+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
+
+==================
+LITMUS TEST NAMING
+==================
+
+Litmus tests are usually named based on their contents, which means that
+looking at the name tells you what the litmus test does.  The naming
+scheme covers litmus tests having a single cycle that passes through
+each process exactly once, so litmus tests not fitting this description
+are named on an ad-hoc basis.
+
+The structure of a litmus-test name is the litmus-test class, a plus
+sign ("+"), and one string for each process, separated by plus signs.
+The end of the name is ".litmus".
+
+The litmus-test classes may be found in the infamous test6.pdf:
+https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppc-supplemental/test6.pdf
+Each class defines the pattern of accesses and of the variables accessed.
+For example, if the one process writes to a pair of variables, and
+the other process reads from these same variables, the corresponding
+litmus-test class is "MP" (message passing), which may be found on the
+left-hand end of the second row of tests on page one of test6.pdf.
+
+The strings used to identify the actions carried out by each process are
+complex due to a desire to have short(er) names.  Thus, there is a tool to
+generate these strings from a given litmus test's actions.  For example,
+consider the processes from SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus:
+
+	P0(int *x, int *y)
+	{
+		int r1;
+		int r2;
+
+		WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+		r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+		r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	}
+
+	P1(int *x, int *y)
+	{
+		int r3;
+		int r4;
+
+		WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+		r3 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+		r4 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	}
+
+The next step is to construct a space-separated list of descriptors,
+interleaving descriptions of the relation between a pair of consecutive
+accesses with descriptions of the second access in the pair.
+
+P0()'s WRITE_ONCE() is read by its first READ_ONCE(), which is a
+reads-from link (rf) and internal to the P0() process.  This is
+"rfi", which is an abbreviation for "reads-from internal".  Because
+some of the tools string these abbreviations together with space
+characters separating processes, the first character is capitalized,
+resulting in "Rfi".
+
+P0()'s second access is a READ_ONCE(), as opposed to (for example)
+smp_load_acquire(), so next is "Once".  Thus far, we have "Rfi Once".
+
+P0()'s third access is also a READ_ONCE(), but to y rather than x.
+This is related to P0()'s second access by program order ("po"),
+to a different variable ("d"), and both accesses are reads ("RR").
+The resulting descriptor is "PodRR".  Because P0()'s third access is
+READ_ONCE(), we add another "Once" descriptor.
+
+A from-read ("fre") relation links P0()'s third to P1()'s first
+access, and the resulting descriptor is "Fre".  P1()'s first access is
+WRITE_ONCE(), which as before gives the descriptor "Once".  The string
+thus far is thus "Rfi Once PodRR Once Fre Once".
+
+The remainder of P1() is similar to P0(), which means we add
+"Rfi Once PodRR Once".  Another fre links P1()'s last access to
+P0()'s first access, which is WRITE_ONCE(), so we add "Fre Once".
+The full string is thus:
+
+	Rfi Once PodRR Once Fre Once Rfi Once PodRR Once Fre Once
+
+This string can be given to the "norm7" and "classify7" tools to
+produce the name:
+
+	$ norm7 -bell linux-kernel.bell \
+		Rfi Once PodRR Once Fre Once Rfi Once PodRR Once Fre Once | \
+	  sed -e 's/:.*//g'
+	SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces
+
+Adding the ".litmus" suffix: SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus
+
+The descriptors that describe connections between consecutive accesses
+within the cycle through a given litmus test can be provided by the herd7
+tool (Rfi, Po, Fre, and so on) or by the linux-kernel.bell file (Once,
+Release, Acquire, and so on).
+
+To see the full list of descriptors, execute the following command:
+
+	$ diyone7 -bell linux-kernel.bell -show edges

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+C S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * Can a smp_wmb(), instead of a release, and an acquire order a prior
+ * store against a subsequent store?
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
+	smp_wmb();
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = smp_load_acquire(y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists (x=2 /\ 1:r0=1)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/S+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+C S+poonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * Starting with a two-process release-acquire chain ordering P0()'s
+ * first store against P1()'s final load, if the smp_store_release()
+ * is replaced by WRITE_ONCE() and the smp_load_acquire() replaced by
+ * READ_ONCE(), is ordering preserved?
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists (x=2 /\ 1:r0=1)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+C SB+fencembonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that full memory barriers suffice to
+ * order the store-buffering pattern, where each process writes to the
+ * variable that the preceding process reads.  (Locking and RCU can also
+ * suffice, but not much else.)
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	smp_mb();
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	smp_mb();
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+poonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+C SB+poonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that at least some ordering is required
+ * to order the store-buffering pattern, where each process writes to the
+ * variable that the preceding process reads.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+C SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that LKMM is not fully multicopy atomic.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r1;
+	int r2;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r3;
+	int r4;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	r3 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	r4 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+locations [0:r1; 1:r3; x; y] (* Debug aid: Print things not in "exists". *)
+exists (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r4=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+poonceonces+Once.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+C WRC+poonceonces+Once
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * This litmus test is an extension of the message-passing pattern,
+ * where the first write is moved to a separate process.  Note that this
+ * test has no ordering at all.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r0=1 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+C WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * 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.  More
+ * specifically, this litmus test is forbidden because smp_store_release()
+ * is A-cumulative in LKMM.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	smp_store_release(y, 1);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r0;
+	int r1;
+
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	smp_rmb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r0=1 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+C Z6.0+pooncelock+poonceLock+pombonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates how smp_mb__after_spinlock() may be
+ * used to ensure that accesses in different critical sections for a
+ * given lock running on different CPUs are nevertheless seen in order
+ * by CPUs not holding that lock.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
+{
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P1(int *y, int *z, spinlock_t *mylock)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	smp_mb__after_spinlock();
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *z)
+{
+	int r1;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 2);
+	smp_mb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ z=2 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+C Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * This example demonstrates that a pair of accesses made by different
+ * processes each while holding a given lock will not necessarily be
+ * seen as ordered by a third process not holding that lock.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
+{
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P1(int *y, int *z, spinlock_t *mylock)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	spin_lock(mylock);
+	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
+	spin_unlock(mylock);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *z)
+{
+	int r1;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 2);
+	smp_mb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ z=2 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+C Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Sometimes
+ *
+ * This litmus test shows that a release-acquire chain, while sufficient
+ * when there is but one non-reads-from (AKA non-rf) link, does not suffice
+ * if there is more than one.  Of the three processes, only P1() reads from
+ * P0's write, which means that there are two non-rf links: P1() to P2()
+ * is a write-to-write link (AKA a "coherence" or just "co" link) and P2()
+ * to P0() is a read-to-write link (AKA a "from-reads" or just "fr" link).
+ * When there are two or more non-rf links, you typically will need one
+ * full barrier for each non-rf link.  (Exceptions include some cases
+ * involving locking.)
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	smp_store_release(y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *y, int *z)
+{
+	int r0;
+
+	r0 = smp_load_acquire(y);
+	smp_store_release(z, 1);
+}
+
+P2(int *x, int *z)
+{
+	int r1;
+
+	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 2);
+	smp_mb();
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r0=1 /\ z=2 /\ 2:r1=0)

linux-7.2.3/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/dep+plain.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+C dep+plain
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * This litmus test demonstrates that in LKMM, plain accesses
+ * carry dependencies much like accesses to registers:
+ * The data stored to *z1 and *z2 by P0() originates from P0()'s
+ * READ_ONCE(), and therefore using that data to compute the
+ * conditional of P0()'s if-statement creates a control dependency
+ * from that READ_ONCE() to P0()'s WRITE_ONCE().
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(int *x, int *y, int *z1, int *z2)
+{
+	int a = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	*z1 = a;
+	*z2 = *z1;
+	if (*z2 == 1)
+		WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r = smp_load_acquire(y);
+	smp_store_release(x, r);
+}
+
+exists (x=1 /\ y=1)