From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Parri Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] LKMM: Add litmus test for RCU GP guarantee where updater frees object Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 11:44:04 +0100 Message-ID: <20200320104404.GA24635@andrea> References: <20200320065552.253696-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:41737 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726791AbgCTKoP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2020 06:44:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200320065552.253696-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa , Alan Stern , Boqun Feng , Daniel Lustig , David Howells , Jade Alglave , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Luc Maranget , Nicholas Piggin , "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 02:55:50AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > This adds an example for the important RCU grace period guarantee, which > shows an RCU reader can never span a grace period. > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) > --- > .../litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus | 40 +++++++++++++++++++ I forgot to mention: this should probably come with an update of the list of tests reported in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README and similarly for patches #2 and #3; #2, #3 looked otherwise fine to me. Thanks, Andrea > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..c4682502dd296 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus > @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ > +C RCU+sync+free > + > +(* > + * Result: Never > + * > + * This litmus test demonstrates that an RCU reader can never see a write after > + * the grace period, if it saw writes that happen before the grace period. This > + * is a typical pattern of RCU usage, where the write before the grace period > + * assigns a pointer, and the writes after destroy the object that the pointer > + * points to. > + * > + * This guarantee also implies, an RCU reader can never span a grace period and > + * is an important RCU grace period memory ordering guarantee. > + *) > + > +{ > +x = 1; > +y = x; > +z = 1; > +} > + > +P0(int *x, int *z, int **y) > +{ > + int r0; > + int r1; > + > + rcu_read_lock(); > + r0 = rcu_dereference(*y); > + r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0); > + rcu_read_unlock(); > +} > + > +P1(int *x, int *z, int **y) > +{ > + rcu_assign_pointer(*y, z); > + synchronize_rcu(); > + WRITE_ONCE(*x, 0); > +} > + > +exists (0:r0=x /\ 0:r1=0) > -- > 2.25.1.696.g5e7596f4ac-goog >