Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)

Paul E. McKenney
2023-01-16T19:07:03Z

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 01:11:41PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 08:23:29PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 03:46:10PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:10:52AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 11:23:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 09:15:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > What am I missing here?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think you're missing anything. This is a matter for Boqun or
> > > > > Luc; it must have something to do with the way herd treats the
> > > > > srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() primitives.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like we need something that tracks (data | rf)* between
> > > > the return value of srcu_read_lock() and the second parameter of
> > > > srcu_read_unlock(). The reason for rf rather than rfi is the upcoming
> > > > srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read().
> > >
> > > Or just make herd treat srcu_read_lock(s) as an annotated equivalent of
> > > READ_ONCE(&s) and srcu_read_unlock(s, v) as an annotated equivalent of
> > > WRITE_ONCE(s, v). But with some special accomodation to avoid
> > > interaction with the new carry-dep relation.
> >
> > This is a modification to herd7 you are suggesting? Otherwise, I am
> > suffering a failure of imagination on how to properly sort it from the
> > other READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() instances.
>
> srcu_read_lock and srcu_read_unlock events would be distinguished from
> other marked loads and stores by belonging to the Srcu-lock and
> Srcu-unlock sets. But I don't know whether this result can be
> accomplished just by modifying the .def file -- it might require changes
> to herd7. (In fact, as far as I know there is no documentation at all
> for the double-underscore operations used in linux-kernel.def. Hint
> hint!)
>
> As mentioned earlier, we should ask Luc or Boqun.

Good point, will do.

> > > > Or is there some better intermediate position that could be taken?
> > >
> > > Do you mean go back to the current linux-kernel.bell? The code you
> > > wrote above is different, since it prohibits nesting.
> >
> > Not to the current linux-kernel.bell, but, as you say, making the change
> > to obtain a better approximation by prohibiting nesting.
>
> Why do you want to prohibit nesting? Why would that be a better
> approximation?

Because the current LKMM gives wrong answers for nested critical
sections. For example, for the litmus test shown below, mainline
LKMM will incorrectly report "Never". The two SRCU read-side critical
sections are independent, so the fact that P1()'s synchronize_srcu() is
guaranteed to wait for the first on to complete says nothing about the
second having completed. Therefore, in Linux-kernel SRCU, the "exists"
clause could be satisfied.

In contrast, the proposed change flags this as having nesting.

Thaxn, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

C C-srcu-nest-5

(*
* Result: Sometimes
*
* This demonstrates non-nesting of SRCU read-side critical sections.
* Unlike RCU, SRCU critical sections do not nest.
*)

{}

P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1)
{
int r1;
int r2;
int r3;
int r4;

r3 = srcu_read_lock(s1);
r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
r4 = srcu_read_lock(s1);
srcu_read_unlock(s1, r3);
r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
srcu_read_unlock(s1, r4);
}

P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1)
{
WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
synchronize_srcu(s1);
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
}

locations [0:r1]
exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)