Re: [PATCH RFC memory-model 0/6] LKMM updates

Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-10T14:31:37Z

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:40:24AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > > It seems that
> > > > >
> > > > > 1b52d0186177 ("tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()")
> > > > >
> > > > > from linux-rcu/dev got lost; this also needs an ack (probably yours! ;D,
> > > > > considered that, IIRC, you introduced the primitive and RCU is currently
> > > > > its only user.)
> > > >
> > > > That commit is in -tip:
> > > >
> > > > 4607abbcf464 ("tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()")
> > > >
> > > > So it has already left my -rcu tree. ;-)
> > >
> > > Oh, you're right: now I see the commit (e.g., with "git show"), but I
> > > don't see the corresponding changes applied to the tree.
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=locking/core&id=4607abbcf464ea2be14da444215d05c73025cf6e
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/tree/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell?h=locking/core
> > >
> > > Is this expected?
> >
> > Are you asking why it is in -tip but not in mainline? I am not sure,
> > but given that the merge window was over the holiday season and that
> > the length of the merge window proved to be shorter than many people
> > expected it to be, I am not too surprised. ;-)
>
> Mmh, let me try again:
>
> $ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git
> $ cd tip
> $ git checkout -b locking/core origin/locking/core
>
> $ git show 4607abbcf464
> commit 4607abbcf464ea2be14da444215d05c73025cf6e
> Author: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
> Date: Mon Dec 3 15:04:49 2018 -0800
>
> tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
>
> $ cd tools/memory-model
> $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg after-unlock-lock-same-cpu.litmus
> File "after-unlock-lock-same-cpu.litmus": Unknown macro smp_mb__after_unlock_lock (User error)
>
> [aka, linux-kernel.def in tip:locking/core does not have the
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() added by 4607abbcf464]

Color me confused:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

$ git checkout 4607abbcf464Checking out files: 100% (18397/18397), done.
Previous HEAD position was 4e284b1bf15a rcu: Remove wrapper definitions for obsolete RCU update functions
HEAD is now at 4607abbcf464 tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
$ grep smp_mb__after_unlock_lock tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() { __fence{after-unlock-lock}; }

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, it handles this litmus test just fine:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

C MP+polocks

(*
* Result: Never
*
* This litmus test demonstrates how lock acquisitions and releases can
* stand in for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release(), respectively.
* In other words, when holding a given lock (or indeed after releasing a
* given lock), a CPU is not only guaranteed to see the accesses that other
* CPUs made while previously holding that lock, it is also guaranteed
* to see all prior accesses by those other CPUs.
*)

{}

P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
{
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
spin_lock(mylock);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
spin_unlock(mylock);
}

P1(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
{
int r0;
int r1;

spin_lock(mylock);
r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
spin_unlock(mylock);
r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}

exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, color me confused.

Thanx, Paul