Re: [PATCH memory-model 2/4] Documentation/litmus-tests: Demonstrate unordered failing cmpxchg

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>]

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 08:44:30AM +0200, Hernan Ponce de Leon wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 8:00 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 06:30:45PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > Am 5/6/2024 um 12:05 PM schrieb Jonas Oberhauser:
> > > > Am 5/2/2024 um 1:21 AM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> > > > > This commit adds four litmus tests showing that a failing cmpxchg()
> > > > > operation is unordered unless followed by an smp_mb__after_atomic()
> > > > > operation.
> > > > 
> > > > So far, my understanding was that all RMW operations without suffix
> > > > (xchg(), cmpxchg(), ...) will be interpreted as F[Mb];...;F[Mb].
> > > > 
> > > > I guess this shows again how important it is to model these full
> > > > barriers explicitly inside the cat model, instead of relying on implicit
> > > > conversions internal to herd.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd like to propose a patch to this effect.
> > > > 
> > > > What is the intended behavior of a failed cmpxchg()? Is it the same as a
> > > > relaxed one?
> > 
> > Yes, and unless I am too confused, LKMM currently does implement this.
> > Please let me know if I am missing something.
> > 
> > > > My suggestion would be in the direction of marking read and write events
> > > > of these operations as Mb, and then defining
> > > > 
> > > > (* full barrier events that appear in non-failing RMW *)
> > > > let RMW_MB = Mb & (dom(rmw) | range(rmw))
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > let mb =
> > > >       [M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M]
> > > >     | [M] ; (po \ rmw) ; [RMW_MB] ; po^? ; [M]
> > > >     | [M] ; po^? ; [RMW_MB] ; (po \ rmw) ; [M]
> > > >     | ...
> > > > 
> > > > The po \ rmw is because ordering is not provided internally of the rmw
> > > 
> > > (removed the unnecessary si since LKMM is still non-mixed-accesses)
> > 
> > Addition of mixed-access support would be quite welcome!
> > 
> > > This could also be written with a single rule:
> > > 
> > >       | [M] ; (po \ rmw) & (po^?; [RMW_MB] ; po^?) ; [M]
> > > 
> > > > I suspect that after we added [rmw] sequences it could perhaps be
> > > > simplified [...]
> > > 
> > > No, my suspicion is wrong - this would incorrectly let full-barrier RMWs
> > > act like strong fences when they appear in an rmw sequence.
> > > 
> > >   if (z==1)  ||  x = 2;     ||  xchg(&y,2)  || if (y==2)
> > >     x = 1;   ||  y =_rel 1; ||              ||    z=1;
> > > 
> > > 
> > > right now, we allow x=2 overwriting x=1 (in case the last thread does not
> > > propagate x=2 along with z=1) because on power, the xchg might be
> > > implemented with a sync that doesn't get executed until the very end
> > > of the program run.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Instead of its negative form (everything other than inside the rmw),
> > > it could also be rewritten positively. Here's a somewhat short form:
> > > 
> > > let mb =
> > >       [M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M]
> > >     (* everything across a full barrier RMW is ordered. This includes up to
> > > one event inside the RMW. *)
> > >     | [M] ; po ; [RMW_MB] ; po ; [M]
> > >     (* full barrier RMW writes are ordered with everything behind the RMW *)
> > >     | [W & RMW_MB] ; po ; [M]
> > >     (* full barrier RMW reads are ordered with everything before the RMW *)
> > >     | [M] ; po ; [R & RMW_MB]
> > >     | ...
> > 
> > Does this produce the results expected by the litmus tests in the Linux
> > kernel source tree and also those at https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus?
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> I implemented in the dartagnan tool the changes proposed by Jonas (i.e.
> changing the mb definition in the cat model and removing the fences that
> were added programmatically).
> 
> I run this using the ~5K litmus test I have (it should include everything
> from the source tree + the non-LISA ones from your repo). I also checked
> with the version of qspinlock discussed in [1].
> 
> I do get the expected results.

Thank you very much, Hernan!!!  And good show, Puranjay!!!

							Thanx, Paul

> Hernan
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/8/26/597
>