Re: [RFC 0/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 11:16:50AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:43:45PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 07:25:50AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:27:44AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > A recent discussion raises up the requirement for having test cases for
> > > > > > atomic APIs:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200213085849.GL14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > , and since we already have a way to generate a test module from a
> > > > > > litmus test with klitmus[1]. It makes sense that we add more litmus
> > > > > > tests for atomic APIs into memory-model.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It might be worth discussing this point a little more fully.  The 
> > > > > set of tests in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ is deliberately rather 
> > > > > limited.  Paul has a vastly more expansive set of litmus tests in a 
> > > > > GitHub repository, and I am doubtful about how many new tests we want 
> > > > > to keep in the kernel source.
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed, the current view is that the litmus tests in the kernel source
> > > > tree are intended to provide examples of C-litmus-test-language features
> > > > and functions, as opposed to exercising the full cross-product of
> > > > Linux-kernel synchronization primitives.
> > > > 
> > > > For a semi-reasonable subset of that cross-product, as Alan says, please
> > > > see https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus.
> > > > 
> > > > For a list of the Linux-kernel synchronization primitives currently
> > > > supported by LKMM, please see tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So how about I put those atomic API tests into a separate directory, say
> > > Documentation/atomic/ ?
> > > 
> > > The problem I want to solve here is that people (usually who implements
> > > the atomic APIs for new archs) may want some examples, which can help
> > > them understand the API requirements and test the implementation. And
> > > litmus tests are the perfect tool here (given that them can be
> > > translated to test modules with klitmus). And I personally really think
> > > this is something the LKMM group should maintain, that's why I put them
> > > in the tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/. But I'm OK if we end up
> > > deciding those should be put outside that directory.
> > 
> > Good point!
> > 
> > However, we should dicuss this with the proposed beneficiaries, namely
> > the architecture maintainers.  Do they want it?  If so, where would
> > they like it to be?  How should it be organized?
> > 

Paul,

Well, I was simply motivated by the discuss on microblaze's atomic
implementation (which I pasted the link in this cover letter):

	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200213085849.GL14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/

, please see the last paragraph, Michal asking Peter for some tests. So
I think there is at least some one wanting this ;-)

> > In the meantime, I am more than happy to accept litmus tests into the
> > github archive.
> > 

Thanks ;-)

> > So how would you like to proceed?

I think we are still at the discussion stage, so I'm happy to see
suggestions on where to put the litmus tests and which litmus tests
should be included.

> 
> I think it makes sense to put Boqun's tests under Documentation/ rather
> than tools/.  After all, their point is to document the memory model's
> requirements for operations on atomic_t's.  They aren't meant to be
> examples or demos showing how to use herd or write litmus tests.
> 

Alan,

Got it. I will create the Documentation/atomic directory and put the
litmus tests there in the next version.

Thank you both!

Regards,
Boqun

> Alan
>