From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC memory-model 0/6] LKMM updates Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 08:31:26 -0800 Message-ID: <20190110163126.GS1215@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190110143137.GJ1215@linux.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Andrea Parri , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, 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, willy@infradead.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:41:23AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > 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 > > > 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. > > Andrea's point is that while the 1b52d0186177 commit is present in the > tip repository, it isn't in the locking/core branch. That commit is still in tip/master, so it has not been lost or forgotten. ;-) Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:33578 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727750AbfAJQbf (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:31:35 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id x0AGTenS075663 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:31:34 -0500 Received: from e14.ny.us.ibm.com (e14.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.204]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2px6mbhtre-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:31:34 -0500 Received: from localhost by e14.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:31:33 -0000 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 08:31:26 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC memory-model 0/6] LKMM updates Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190110143137.GJ1215@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20190110163126.GS1215@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alan Stern Cc: Andrea Parri , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, 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, willy@infradead.org Message-ID: <20190110163126.Dxn1DbTrV9dFroMwBKJfKS4CKt04xRnzBr1d4pouuiI@z> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:41:23AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > 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 > > > 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. > > Andrea's point is that while the 1b52d0186177 commit is present in the > tip repository, it isn't in the locking/core branch. That commit is still in tip/master, so it has not been lost or forgotten. ;-) Thanx, Paul