All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
	Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Daniel Kroening <kroening@cs.ox.ac.uk>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:54:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190418125412.GA10817@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190415133535.GU14111@linux.ibm.com>

> Another question is "should the kernel permit smp_mb__{before,after}*()
> anywhere other than immediately before or after the primitive being
> strengthened?"

Mmh, I do think that keeping these barriers "immediately before or after
the primitive being strengthened" is a good practice (readability, and
all that), if this is what you're suggesting.

However, a first auditing of the callsites showed that this practice is
in fact not always applied, notably... ;-)

	kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:sync_exp_work_done
	kernel/sched/cpupri.c:cpupri_set

So there appear, at least, to be some exceptions/reasons for not always
following it?  Thoughts?

BTW, while auditing these callsites, I've stumbled across the following
snippet (from kernel/futex.c):

	*futex = newval;
	sys_futex(WAKE, futex);
          futex_wake(futex);
          smp_mb(); (B)
	  if (waiters)
	    ...

where B is actually (c.f., futex_get_mm()):

	atomic_inc(...->mm_count);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();

It seems worth mentioning the fact that, AFAICT, this sequence does not
necessarily provide ordering when plain accesses are involved: consider,
e.g., the following variant of the snippet:

	A:*x = 1;
	/*
	 * I've "ignored" the syscall, which should provide
	 * (at least) a compiler barrier...
	 */
	atomic_inc(u);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:r0 = *y;

On x86, AFAICT, the compiler can do this:

	atomic_inc(u);
	A:*x = 1;
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:r0 = *y;

(the implementation of atomic_inc() contains no compiler barrier), then
the CPU can "reorder" A and B (smp_mb__after_atomic() being #defined to
a compiler barrier).

The mips implementation seems also affected by such "reorderings": I am
not familiar with this implementation but, AFAICT, it does not enforce
ordering from A to B in the following snippet:

	A:*x = 1;
	atomic_inc(u);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);

when CONFIG_WEAK_ORDERING=y, CONFIG_WEAK_REORDERING_BEYOND_LLSC=n.

Do these observations make sense to you?  Thoughts?

  Andrea

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-04-18 12:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-19 19:38 Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM Alan Stern
2019-04-02 14:42 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-02 18:06   ` Alan Stern
2019-04-06  0:49     ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-06 16:03       ` Alan Stern
2019-04-08  5:51         ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-08 14:18           ` Alan Stern
2019-04-09  1:36             ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-09 15:01               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-13 21:39                 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-15 13:35                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-15 13:50                     ` Alan Stern
2019-04-15 13:53                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-18 12:54                     ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2019-04-18 17:44                       ` Alan Stern
2019-04-18 18:39                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-18 20:19                           ` Alan Stern
2019-04-19  0:53                         ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-19 12:47                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-19 14:34                             ` Alan Stern
2019-04-19 17:17                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-19 15:06                             ` Akira Yokosawa
2019-04-19 16:37                               ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-19 18:06                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-20 14:50                                 ` Akira Yokosawa
2019-04-21 19:38                                   ` Paul E. McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190418125412.GA10817@andrea \
    --to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
    --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
    --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
    --cc=kroening@cs.ox.ac.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.