From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@kernel.org
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH memory-model 4/5] tools/memory-model: Add more LKMM limitations
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:29:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180926182920.27644-4-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180926182845.GA24839@linux.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
This commit adds more detail about compiler optimizations and
not-yet-modeled Linux-kernel APIs.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
---
tools/memory-model/README | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/README b/tools/memory-model/README
index ee987ce20aae..acf9077cffaa 100644
--- a/tools/memory-model/README
+++ b/tools/memory-model/README
@@ -171,6 +171,12 @@ The Linux-kernel memory model has the following limitations:
particular, the "THE PROGRAM ORDER RELATION: po AND po-loc"
and "A WARNING" sections).
+ Note that this limitation in turn limits LKMM's ability to
+ accurately model address, control, and data dependencies.
+ For example, if the compiler can deduce the value of some variable
+ carrying a dependency, then the compiler can break that dependency
+ by substituting a constant of that value.
+
2. Multiple access sizes for a single variable are not supported,
and neither are misaligned or partially overlapping accesses.
@@ -190,6 +196,36 @@ The Linux-kernel memory model has the following limitations:
However, a substantial amount of support is provided for these
operations, as shown in the linux-kernel.def file.
+ a. When rcu_assign_pointer() is passed NULL, the Linux
+ kernel provides no ordering, but LKMM models this
+ case as a store release.
+
+ b. The "unless" RMW operations are not currently modeled:
+ atomic_long_add_unless(), atomic_add_unless(),
+ atomic_inc_unless_negative(), and
+ atomic_dec_unless_positive(). These can be emulated
+ in litmus tests, for example, by using atomic_cmpxchg().
+
+ c. The call_rcu() function is not modeled. It can be
+ emulated in litmus tests by adding another process that
+ invokes synchronize_rcu() and the body of the callback
+ function, with (for example) a release-acquire from
+ the site of the emulated call_rcu() to the beginning
+ of the additional process.
+
+ d. The rcu_barrier() function is not modeled. It can be
+ emulated in litmus tests emulating call_rcu() via
+ (for example) a release-acquire from the end of each
+ additional call_rcu() process to the site of the
+ emulated rcu-barrier().
+
+ e. Sleepable RCU (SRCU) is not modeled. It can be
+ emulated, but perhaps not simply.
+
+ f. Reader-writer locking is not modeled. It can be
+ emulated in litmus tests using atomic read-modify-write
+ operations.
+
The "herd7" tool has some additional limitations of its own, apart from
the memory model:
@@ -204,3 +240,6 @@ the memory model:
Some of these limitations may be overcome in the future, but others are
more likely to be addressed by incorporating the Linux-kernel memory model
into other tools.
+
+Finally, please note that LKMM is subject to change as hardware, use cases,
+and compilers evolve.
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-26 18:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-26 18:28 [PATCH memory-model 0/5] Updates to the formal memory model Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` [PATCH memory-model 1/5] tools/memory-model: Add litmus-test naming scheme Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` [PATCH memory-model 2/5] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` [PATCH memory-model 3/5] tools/memory-model: Fix a README typo Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-09-26 18:29 ` [PATCH memory-model 4/5] tools/memory-model: Add more LKMM limitations Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` [PATCH memory-model 5/5] doc: Replace smp_cond_acquire() with smp_cond_load_acquire() Paul E. McKenney
2018-09-26 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-02 8:28 ` [PATCH memory-model 0/5] Updates to the formal memory model Ingo Molnar
2018-10-02 8:28 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20180926182920.27644-4-paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).