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.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH memory-model 4/7] tools/memory-model: Update README for addition of SRCU
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:37:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190213173743.26682-4-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190213173650.GA26078@linux.ibm.com>
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 <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
---
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 17:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-13 17:36 [PATCH memory-model 0/7] LKMM updates for v5.1 Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` [PATCH memory-model 1/7] tools/memory-model: Rename some RCU relations Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` [PATCH memory-model 2/7] tools/memory-model: Refactor " Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` [PATCH memory-model 3/7] tools/memory-model: Add SRCU support Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-02-13 17:37 ` [PATCH memory-model 4/7] tools/memory-model: Update README for addition of SRCU Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` [PATCH memory-model 5/7] tools/memory-model: Update Documentation/explanation.txt to include SRCU support Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` [PATCH memory-model 6/7] tools/memory-model: Dynamically check SRCU lock-to-unlock matching Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` [PATCH memory-model 7/7] tools/memory-model: Avoid duplicating herdtools versions Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 17:37 ` 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=20190213173743.26682-4-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=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