Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM

Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-19T18:18:05Z

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:34:06AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 02:53:02AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > Are you saying that on x86, atomic_inc() acts as a full memory barrier
> > > > but not as a compiler barrier, and vice versa for
> > > > smp_mb__after_atomic()? Or that neither atomic_inc() nor
> > > > smp_mb__after_atomic() implements a full memory barrier?
> > >
> > > I'd say the former; AFAICT, these boil down to:
> > >
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.1-rc5/source/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h#L95
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.1-rc5/source/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h#L84
> >
> > OK, how about the following?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > commit 19d166dadc4e1bba4b248fb46d32ca4f2d10896b
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> > Date: Fri Apr 19 05:20:30 2019 -0700
> >
> > tools/memory-model: Make smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() match x86
> >
> > Read-modify-write atomic operations that do not return values need not
> > provide any ordering guarantees, and this means that both the compiler
> > and the CPU are free to reorder accesses across things like atomic_inc()
> > and atomic_dec(). The stronger systems such as x86 allow the compiler
> > to do the reordering, but prevent the CPU from so doing, and these
> > systems implement smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() as compiler barriers.
> > The weaker systems such as Power allow both the compiler and the CPU
> > to reorder accesses across things like atomic_inc() and atomic_dec(),
> > and implement smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() as full memory barriers.
> >
> > This means that smp_mb__before_atomic() only orders the atomic operation
> > itself with accesses preceding the smp_mb__before_atomic(), and does
> > not necessarily provide any ordering whatsoever against accesses
> > folowing the atomic operation. Similarly, smp_mb__after_atomic()
> > only orders the atomic operation itself with accesses following the
> > smp_mb__after_atomic(), and does not necessarily provide any ordering
> > whatsoever against accesses preceding the atomic operation. Full ordering
> > therefore requires both an smp_mb__before_atomic() before the atomic
> > operation and an smp_mb__after_atomic() after the atomic operation.
> >
> > Therefore, linux-kernel.cat's current model of Before-atomic
> > and After-atomic is too strong, as it guarantees ordering of
> > accesses on the other side of the atomic operation from the
> > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(). This commit therefore weakens
> > the guarantee to match the semantics called out above.
> >
> > Reported-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
> > Suggested-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > index 169d938c0b53..e5b97c3e8e39 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > @@ -1888,7 +1888,37 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
> > atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
> >
> > This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set
> > - *before* the reference counter is decremented.
> > + *before* the reference counter is decremented. However, please note
> > + that smp_mb__before_atomic()'s ordering guarantee does not necessarily
> > + extend beyond the atomic operation. For example:
> > +
> > + obj->dead = 1;
> > + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > + atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
> > + r1 = a;
> > +
> > + Here the store to obj->dead is not guaranteed to be ordered with
> > + with the load from a. This reordering can happen on x86 as follows:
> > + (1) The compiler can reorder the load from a to precede the
> > + atomic_dec(), (2) Because x86 smp_mb__before_atomic() is only a
> > + compiler barrier, the CPU can reorder the preceding store to
> > + obj->dead with the later load from a.
> > +
> > + This could be avoided by using READ_ONCE(), which would prevent the
> > + compiler from reordering due to both atomic_dec() and READ_ONCE()
> > + being volatile accesses, and is usually preferable for loads from
> > + shared variables. However, weakly ordered CPUs would still be
> > + free to reorder the atomic_dec() with the load from a, so a more
> > + readable option is to also use smp_mb__after_atomic() as follows:
> > +
> > + WRITE_ONCE(obj->dead, 1);
> > + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > + atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
> > + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > + r1 = READ_ONCE(a);
> > +
> > + This orders all three accesses against each other, and also makes
> > + the intent quite clear.
> >
> > See Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt for more information.
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > index 8dcb37835b61..b6866f93abb8 100644
> > --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ include "lock.cat"
> > let rmb = [R \ Noreturn] ; fencerel(Rmb) ; [R \ Noreturn]
> > let wmb = [W] ; fencerel(Wmb) ; [W]
> > let mb = ([M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M]) |
> > - ([M] ; fencerel(Before-atomic) ; [RMW] ; po? ; [M]) |
> > - ([M] ; po? ; [RMW] ; fencerel(After-atomic) ; [M]) |
> > + ([M] ; fencerel(Before-atomic) ; [RMW]) |
> > + ([RMW] ; fencerel(After-atomic) ; [M]) |
> > ([M] ; po? ; [LKW] ; fencerel(After-spinlock) ; [M]) |
> > ([M] ; po ; [UL] ; (co | po) ; [LKW] ;
> > fencerel(After-unlock-lock) ; [M])
>
> Something like the following should also be applied, either as part of
> the same patch or immediately after.

Please do send a patch!

Thanx, Paul

> Alan
>
>
> Index: usb-devel/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-devel.orig/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ usb-devel/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -171,7 +171,10 @@ The barriers:
> smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
>
> only apply to the RMW ops and can be used to augment/upgrade the ordering
> -inherent to the used atomic op. These barriers provide a full smp_mb().
> +inherent to the used atomic op. Unlike normal smp_mb() barriers, they order
> +only the RMW op itself against the instructions preceding the
> +smp_mb__before_atomic() or following the smp_mb__after_atomic(); they do
> +not order instructions on the other side of the RMW op at all.
>
> These helper barriers exist because architectures have varying implicit
> ordering on their SMP atomic primitives. For example our TSO architectures
> @@ -195,7 +198,8 @@ Further, while something like:
> atomic_dec(&X);
>
> is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than
> -a RELEASE. Similarly for something like:
> +a RELEASE because it orders preceding instructions against both the read
> +and write parts of the atomic_dec(). Similarly, something like:
>
> atomic_inc(&X);
> smp_mb__after_atomic();
> @@ -227,7 +231,8 @@ strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illus
>
> This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() --
> (void)atomic_fetch_inc_acquire() for instance -- would allow the outcome,
> -since then:
> +because it would not order the W part of the RMW against the following
> +WRITE_ONCE. Thus:
>
> P1 P2
>
>