tools/memory-model: Rename litmus tests to comply to norm7

norm7 produces the 'normalized' name of a litmus test, when the test
can be generated from a single cycle that passes through each process
exactly once. The commit renames such tests in order to comply to the
naming scheme implemented by this tool.

Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[e-mail]>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <[e-mail]>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <[e-mail]>
Cc: Boqun Feng <[e-mail]>
Cc: David Howells <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jade Alglave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <[e-mail]>
Cc: Luc Maranget <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <[e-mail]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
Cc: Will Deacon <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[e-mail]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[e-mail]>

tools/memory-model/Documentation/recipes.txt

···
 locking will be seen as ordered by CPUs not holding that lock.
 Consider this example:
 
-	/* See Z6.0+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce.litmus. */
+	/* See Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce.litmus. */
 	void CPU0(void)
 	{
 		spin_lock(&mylock);
···
 smp_wmb() and smp_rmb() APIs are still heavily used, so it is important
 to understand their use cases.  The general approach is shown below:
 
-	/* See MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus. */
+	/* See MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus. */
 	void CPU0(void)
 	{
 		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
···
 One way of avoiding the counter-intuitive outcome is through the use of a
 control dependency paired with a full memory barrier:
 
-	/* See LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus. */
+	/* See LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce.litmus. */
 	void CPU0(void)
 	{
 		r0 = READ_ONCE(x);
···
 while another CPU stores to the second variable and then loads from the
 first.  Preserving order requires nothing less than full barriers:
 
-	/* See SB+mbonceonces.litmus. */
+	/* See SB+fencembonceonces.litmus. */
 	void CPU0(void)
 	{
 		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);

tools/memory-model/README

···
 The memory model is used, in conjunction with "herd7", to exhaustively
 explore the state space of small litmus tests.
 
-For example, to run SB+mbonceonces.litmus against the memory model:
+For example, to run SB+fencembonceonces.litmus against the memory model:
 
-  $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+  $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
 
 Here is the corresponding output:
 
-  Test SB+mbonceonces Allowed
+  Test SB+fencembonceonces Allowed
   States 3
   0:r0=0; 1:r0=1;
   0:r0=1; 1:r0=0;
···
   Witnesses
   Positive: 0 Negative: 3
   Condition exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0)
-  Observation SB+mbonceonces Never 0 3
-  Time SB+mbonceonces 0.01
+  Observation SB+fencembonceonces Never 0 3
+  Time SB+fencembonceonces 0.01
   Hash=d66d99523e2cac6b06e66f4c995ebb48
 
 The "Positive: 0 Negative: 3" and the "Never 0 3" each indicate that
···
 The "klitmus7" tool converts a litmus test into a Linux kernel module,
 which may then be loaded and run.
 
-For example, to run SB+mbonceonces.litmus against hardware:
+For example, to run SB+fencembonceonces.litmus against hardware:
 
   $ mkdir mymodules
-  $ klitmus7 -o mymodules litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus
+  $ klitmus7 -o mymodules litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus
   $ cd mymodules ; make
   $ sudo sh run.sh
 
 The corresponding output includes:
 
-  Test SB+mbonceonces Allowed
+  Test SB+fencembonceonces Allowed
   Histogram (3 states)
   644580  :>0:r0=1; 1:r0=0;
   644328  :>0:r0=0; 1:r0=1;
···
   Positive: 0, Negative: 2000000
   Condition exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0) is NOT validated
   Hash=d66d99523e2cac6b06e66f4c995ebb48
-  Observation SB+mbonceonces Never 0 2000000
-  Time SB+mbonceonces 0.16
+  Observation SB+fencembonceonces Never 0 2000000
+  Time SB+fencembonceonces 0.16
 
 The "Positive: 0 Negative: 2000000" and the "Never 0 2000000" indicate
 that during two million trials, the state specified in this litmus

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

···
-C IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce
+C IRIW+fencembonceonces+OnceOnce
 
 (*
  * Result: Never

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

···
-C LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce
+C LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce
 
 (*
  * Result: Never

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus

···
-C MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce
+C MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce
 
 (*
  * Result: Never

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+mbonceonces.litmus tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/R+fencembonceonces.litmus

···
-C R+mbonceonces
+C R+fencembonceonces
 
 (*
  * Result: Never

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README

···
 	Test of write-write coherence, that is, whether or not two
 	successive writes to the same variable are ordered.
 
-IRIW+mbonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
+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
···
 	Can a release-acquire chain order a prior store against
 	a later load?
 
-LB+ctrlonceonce+mbonceonce.litmus
+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?
···
 	As below, but with the first access of the writer process
 	and the second access of reader process protected by a lock.
 
-MP+wmbonceonce+rmbonceonce.litmus
+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+mbonceonces.litmus
+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+mbonceonces.litmus
+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.
···
 S+poonceonces.litmus
 	As below, but without the smp_wmb() and acquire load.
 
-S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
+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+rmbonceonce+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
···
 	As above, but with smp_mb__after_spinlock() immediately
 	following the spin_lock().
 
-Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce.litmus
+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?

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

···
-C S+wmbonceonce+poacquireonce
+C S+fencewmbonceonce+poacquireonce
 
 (*
  * Result: Never

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+mbonceonces.litmus tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/SB+fencembonceonces.litmus

···
-C SB+mbonceonces
+C SB+fencembonceonces
 
 (*
  * Result: Never

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

···
-C WRC+pooncerelease+rmbonceonce+Once
+C WRC+pooncerelease+fencermbonceonce+Once
 
 (*
  * Result: Never

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

···
-C Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+mbonceonce
+C Z6.0+pooncerelease+poacquirerelease+fencembonceonce
 
 (*
  * Result: Sometimes