public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
	Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Daniel Kroening <kroening@cs.ox.ac.uk>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:54:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190418125412.GA10817@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190415133535.GU14111@linux.ibm.com>

> Another question is "should the kernel permit smp_mb__{before,after}*()
> anywhere other than immediately before or after the primitive being
> strengthened?"

Mmh, I do think that keeping these barriers "immediately before or after
the primitive being strengthened" is a good practice (readability, and
all that), if this is what you're suggesting.

However, a first auditing of the callsites showed that this practice is
in fact not always applied, notably... ;-)

	kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:sync_exp_work_done
	kernel/sched/cpupri.c:cpupri_set

So there appear, at least, to be some exceptions/reasons for not always
following it?  Thoughts?

BTW, while auditing these callsites, I've stumbled across the following
snippet (from kernel/futex.c):

	*futex = newval;
	sys_futex(WAKE, futex);
          futex_wake(futex);
          smp_mb(); (B)
	  if (waiters)
	    ...

where B is actually (c.f., futex_get_mm()):

	atomic_inc(...->mm_count);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();

It seems worth mentioning the fact that, AFAICT, this sequence does not
necessarily provide ordering when plain accesses are involved: consider,
e.g., the following variant of the snippet:

	A:*x = 1;
	/*
	 * I've "ignored" the syscall, which should provide
	 * (at least) a compiler barrier...
	 */
	atomic_inc(u);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:r0 = *y;

On x86, AFAICT, the compiler can do this:

	atomic_inc(u);
	A:*x = 1;
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:r0 = *y;

(the implementation of atomic_inc() contains no compiler barrier), then
the CPU can "reorder" A and B (smp_mb__after_atomic() being #defined to
a compiler barrier).

The mips implementation seems also affected by such "reorderings": I am
not familiar with this implementation but, AFAICT, it does not enforce
ordering from A to B in the following snippet:

	A:*x = 1;
	atomic_inc(u);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);

when CONFIG_WEAK_ORDERING=y, CONFIG_WEAK_REORDERING_BEYOND_LLSC=n.

Do these observations make sense to you?  Thoughts?

  Andrea

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-04-18 12:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-19 19:38 Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM Alan Stern
2019-04-02 14:42 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-02 18:06   ` Alan Stern
2019-04-06  0:49     ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-06 16:03       ` Alan Stern
2019-04-08  5:51         ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-08 14:18           ` Alan Stern
2019-04-09  1:36             ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-09 15:01               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-13 21:39                 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-15 13:35                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-15 13:50                     ` Alan Stern
2019-04-15 13:53                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-18 12:54                     ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2019-04-18 17:44                       ` Alan Stern
2019-04-18 18:39                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-18 20:19                           ` Alan Stern
2019-04-19  0:53                         ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-19 12:47                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-19 14:34                             ` Alan Stern
2019-04-19 17:17                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-19 15:06                             ` Akira Yokosawa
2019-04-19 16:37                               ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-19 18:06                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-20 14:50                                 ` Akira Yokosawa
2019-04-21 19:38                                   ` 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=20190418125412.GA10817@andrea \
    --to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
    --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
    --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
    --cc=kroening@cs.ox.ac.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.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