From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751866AbdK2TFA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:05:00 -0500
Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:7462 "EHLO
        hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750783AbdK2TE6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:04:58 -0500
X-PGP-Universal: processed;
        by hqpgpgate102.nvidia.com on Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:05:39 -0800
Subject: Re: Unlock-lock questions and the Linux Kernel Memory Model
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
CC: Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1711271553490.1424-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
From: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <17506ed0-1ce8-791d-7cf1-c40426015a99@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:04:53 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1711271553490.1424-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
X-Originating-IP: [10.2.175.48]
X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL108.nvidia.com (172.18.146.13) To
 HQMAIL105.nvidia.com (172.20.187.12)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/27/2017 1:16 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> This is essentially a repeat of an email I sent out before the
> Thanksgiving holiday, the assumption being that lack of any responses
> was caused by the holiday break.  (And this time the message is CC'ed
> to LKML, so there will be a public record of it.)
> 
> A few people have said they believe the Linux Kernel Memory Model
> should make unlock followed by lock (of the same variable) act as a
> write memory barrier.  In other words, they want the memory model to
> forbid the following litmus test:
>
<snip>
> 
> I (and others!) would like to know people's opinions on these matters.
> 
> Alan Stern

While we're here, let me ask about another test which isn't directly
about unlock/lock but which is still somewhat related to this
discussion:

"MP+wmb+xchg-acq" (or some such)

{}

P0(int *x, int *y)
{
        WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
        smp_wmb();
        WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
}

P1(int *x, int *y)
{
        r1 = atomic_xchg_relaxed(y, 2);
        r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
        r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}

exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=2 /\ 1:r3=0)

C/C++ would call the atomic_xchg_relaxed part of a release sequence
and hence would forbid this outcome.

x86 and Power would forbid this.  ARM forbids this via a special-case
rule in the memory model, ordering atomics with later load-acquires.

RISC-V, however, wouldn't forbid this by default using RCpc or RCsc
atomics for smp_load_acquire().  It's an "fri; rfi" type of pattern,
because xchg doesn't have an inherent internal data dependency.

If the Linux memory model is going to forbid this outcome, then
RISC-V would either need to use fences instead, or maybe we'd need to
add a special rule to our memory model similarly.  This is one detail
where RISC-V is still actively deciding what to do.

Have you all thought about this test before?  Any idea which way you
are leaning regarding the outcome above?

Thanks,
Dan