From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: [PATCH RFC LKMM 4/7] tools/memory-model: Update README for addition of SRCU Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:07:45 -0800 Message-ID: <20190109210748.29074-4-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190109210706.GA27268@linux.ibm.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190109210706.GA27268@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org 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, willy@infradead.org, "Paul E. McKenney" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org This commit updates the section on LKMM limitations to no longer say that SRCU is not modeled, but instead describe how LKMM's modeling of SRCU departs from the Linux-kernel implementation. TL;DR: There is no known valid use case that cares about the Linux kernel's ability to have partially overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Andrea Parri --- tools/memory-model/README | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/memory-model/README b/tools/memory-model/README index 0f2c366518c6..9d7d4f23503f 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/README +++ b/tools/memory-model/README @@ -221,8 +221,29 @@ The Linux-kernel memory model has the following limitations: 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. + e. Although sleepable RCU (SRCU) is now modeled, there + are some subtle differences between its semantics and + those in the Linux kernel. For example, the kernel + might interpret the following sequence as two partially + overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections: + + 1 r1 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu); + 2 do_something_1(); + 3 r2 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu); + 4 do_something_2(); + 5 srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r1); + 6 do_something_3(); + 7 srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r2); + + In contrast, LKMM will interpret this as a nested pair of + SRCU read-side critical sections, with the outer critical + section spanning lines 1-7 and the inner critical section + spanning lines 3-5. + + This difference would be more of a concern had anyone + identified a reasonable use case for partially overlapping + SRCU read-side critical sections. For more information, + please see: https://paulmck.livejournal.com/40593.html f. Reader-writer locking is not modeled. It can be emulated in litmus tests using atomic read-modify-write -- 2.17.1 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:43790 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726425AbfAIVH6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:07:58 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id x09Kn2o2012559 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:07:57 -0500 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2pwq4rm3wa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 16:07:57 -0500 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 21:07:56 -0000 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: [PATCH RFC LKMM 4/7] tools/memory-model: Update README for addition of SRCU Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:07:45 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20190109210706.GA27268@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190109210706.GA27268@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20190109210748.29074-4-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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, willy@infradead.org, "Paul E. McKenney" Message-ID: <20190109210745.5LVjMOl3_-3dZnkAuPipCfDLEeLp5KVyDrsHcV65v_0@z> This commit updates the section on LKMM limitations to no longer say that SRCU is not modeled, but instead describe how LKMM's modeling of SRCU departs from the Linux-kernel implementation. TL;DR: There is no known valid use case that cares about the Linux kernel's ability to have partially overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Andrea Parri --- tools/memory-model/README | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/memory-model/README b/tools/memory-model/README index 0f2c366518c6..9d7d4f23503f 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/README +++ b/tools/memory-model/README @@ -221,8 +221,29 @@ The Linux-kernel memory model has the following limitations: 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. + e. Although sleepable RCU (SRCU) is now modeled, there + are some subtle differences between its semantics and + those in the Linux kernel. For example, the kernel + might interpret the following sequence as two partially + overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections: + + 1 r1 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu); + 2 do_something_1(); + 3 r2 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu); + 4 do_something_2(); + 5 srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r1); + 6 do_something_3(); + 7 srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r2); + + In contrast, LKMM will interpret this as a nested pair of + SRCU read-side critical sections, with the outer critical + section spanning lines 1-7 and the inner critical section + spanning lines 3-5. + + This difference would be more of a concern had anyone + identified a reasonable use case for partially overlapping + SRCU read-side critical sections. For more information, + please see: https://paulmck.livejournal.com/40593.html f. Reader-writer locking is not modeled. It can be emulated in litmus tests using atomic read-modify-write -- 2.17.1