linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
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: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:43:54 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1901171121360.1207-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190116213658.GA3984@andrea>

On Wed, 16 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.

Umm.  Transforming

	*r0 = 0;

to

	if (*r0 != 0)
		*r0 = 0;

wouldn't work on Alpha if r0 was assigned from a plain read with no
memory barrier between.  But when r0 is assigned from an
rcu_dereference call, or if there's no indirection (as in "if (a != 0)
a = 0;"), the compiler is indeed allowed to perform this
transformation.

This means my definition of preserved writes was wrong; a write we 
thought had to be preserved could instead be transformed into a read.

This objection throws a serious monkey wrench into my approach.  For
one thing, it implies that (as in the example) we can't expect
smp_wmb() always to order plain writes.  For another, it means we have
to assume a lot more writes need not be preserved.

I don't know.  This may doom the effort to formalize dependencies to
plain accesses.  Or at least, those other than address dependencies
from marked reads.

Alan


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-01-17 19:43 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
2019-01-18 16:43         ` Alan Stern
2019-01-17 19:43   ` Alan Stern [this message]
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=Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1901171121360.1207-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org \
    --to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.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=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).