From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: 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>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Plain accesses and data races in the Linux Kernel Memory Model
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 16:56:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190118155638.GA24442@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1901181005110.1425-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:10:22AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, Andrea Parri wrote:
>
> > > Can the compiler (maybe, it does?) transform, at the C or at the "asm"
> > > level, LB1's P0 in LB2's P0 (LB1 and LB2 are reported below)?
> > >
> > > C LB1
> > >
> > > {
> > > int *x = &a;
> > > }
> > >
> > > P0(int **x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > int *r0;
> > >
> > > r0 = rcu_dereference(*x);
> > > *r0 = 0;
> > > smp_wmb();
> > > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > P1(int **x, int *y, int *b)
> > > {
> > > int r0;
> > >
> > > r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > > rcu_assign_pointer(*x, b);
> > > }
> > >
> > > exists (0:r0=b /\ 1:r0=1)
> > >
> > >
> > > C LB2
> > >
> > > {
> > > int *x = &a;
> > > }
> > >
> > > P0(int **x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > int *r0;
> > >
> > > r0 = rcu_dereference(*x);
> > > if (*r0)
> > > *r0 = 0;
> > > smp_wmb();
> > > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > P1(int **x, int *y, int *b)
> > > {
> > > int r0;
> > >
> > > r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > > rcu_assign_pointer(*x, b);
> > > }
> > >
> > > exists (0:r0=b /\ 1:r0=1)
> > >
> > > LB1 and LB2 are data-race free, according to the patch; LB1's "exists"
> > > clause is not satisfiable, while LB2's "exists" clause is satisfiable.
>
> A relatively simple solution to this problem would be to say that
> smp_wmb doesn't order plain writes.
It seems so; I don't have other solutions to suggest ATM. (But, TBH,
I'm still in the process of reviewing/testing these changes... )
And yes, this is a pain! : I don't have the exact statistics, but I'm
willing to believe that removing this order will take us back ~99% of
the current (~500!) uses of smp_wmb() ;-/
Oh, well, maybe we'll find a better solution one day: after all, that
one doesn't seem worse than what the current LKMM has to say! ;-)
>
> I think the rest of the memory model would then be okay. However, I am
> open to arguments that this approach is too complex and we should
> insist on the same kind of strict ordering for race avoidance that the
> C11 standard uses (i.e., conflicting accesses separated by full memory
> barriers or release & acquire barriers or locking).
Indeed; maybe, we've just found another reason to obsolete smp_wmb()! ;-)
Andrea
>
> Alan
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-18 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1901141439480.1366-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
[not found] ` <20190114235426.GV1215@linux.ibm.com>
2019-01-15 7:20 ` Plain accesses and data races in the Linux Kernel Memory Model Dmitry Vyukov
2019-01-15 15:03 ` Alan Stern
2019-01-15 15:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-15 14:25 ` Andrea Parri
2019-01-15 15:19 ` Alan Stern
2019-01-16 11:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-16 13:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-16 15:49 ` Alan Stern
2019-01-16 21:36 ` Andrea Parri
2019-01-17 15:03 ` Andrea Parri
2019-01-17 20:21 ` Alan Stern
2019-01-18 15:10 ` Alan Stern
2019-01-18 15:56 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2019-01-18 16:43 ` Alan Stern
2019-01-17 19:43 ` Alan Stern
2019-01-18 18:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-01-22 15:47 ` Andrea Parri
2019-01-22 16:19 ` Alan Stern
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=20190118155638.GA24442@andrea \
--to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).