| 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.) |
| *) |
| |
| { |
| int x; |
| int y; |
| int z; |
| } |
| |
| 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) |