From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, paulmck@linux.ibm.com,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Refactor snapshot vs nocow writers locking
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:11:46 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <356e1044-b676-1028-3b80-a922acfae5b2@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <69ef76a2-ebd6-956e-c611-2e742606ed95@arm.com>
On 30.07.19 г. 14:03 ч., Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 17:32, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 29/07/2019 16:33, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> [...]
>>> I'd say that's one of the pitfalls of PlusCal. The above is executed
>>> atomically, so you'd have the lock_state read and updated in the same
>>> action. Looking at the C patches, there is an
>>> atomic_read(&lock->readers) followed by a
>>> percpu_counter_inc(&lock->writers). Between these two, you can have
>>> "readers" becoming non-zero via a different CPU.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be to use procedures with labels to express the
>>> non-atomicity of such sequences.
>>>
>>
>
> FYI, with a very simple and stupid modification of the spec:
>
> ----->8-----
> macro ReadUnlock()
> {
> reader_count := reader_count - 1;
> \* Condition variable signal is "implicit" here
> }
>
> macro WriteUnlock()
> {
> writer_count := writer_count - 1;
> \* Ditto on the cond var
> }
>
> procedure ReadLock()
> {
> add:
> reader_count := reader_count + 1;
> lock:
> await writer_count = 0;
> return;
> }
>
> procedure WriteLock()
> {
> add:
> writer_count := writer_count + 1;
> lock:
> await reader_count = 0;
> return;
> };
> -----8<-----
>
> it's quite easy to trigger the case Paul pointed out in [1]:
Yes, however, there was a bug in the original posting, in that
btrfs_drw_try_write_lock should have called btrfs_drw_write_unlock
instead of btrfs_drw_read_unlock if it sees that readers incremented
while it has already incremented its percpu counter.
Additionally the implementation doesn't await with the respective
variable incremented. Is there a way to express something along the
lines of :
> procedure WriteLock()
> {
> add:
> writer_count := writer_count + 1;
> lock:
> await reader_count = 0;
If we are about to wait then also decrement writer_count? I guess the
correct way to specify it would be:
procedure WriteLock()
{
writer_count := writer_count + 1;
await reader_count = 0;
return;
};
Because the implementation (by using barriers and percpu counters
ensures all of this happens as one atomic step?) E.g. before going to
sleep we decrement the write unlock.
> return;
> };
>
> ----->8-----
> Error: Deadlock reached.
> Error: The behavior up to this point is:
> State 1: <Initial predicate>
> /\ stack = (<<reader, 1>> :> <<>> @@ <<writer, 1>> :> <<>>)
> /\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "loop" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "loop_")
> /\ writer_count = 0
> /\ reader_count = 0
> /\ lock_state = "idle"
>
> State 2: <loop_ line 159, col 16 to line 164, col 72 of module specs>
> /\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<>> @@
> <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
> /\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "loop" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "add")
> /\ writer_count = 0
> /\ reader_count = 0
> /\ lock_state = "idle"
>
> State 3: <add line 146, col 14 to line 149, col 63 of module specs>
> /\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<>> @@
> <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
> /\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "loop" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "lock")
> /\ writer_count = 1
> /\ reader_count = 0
> /\ lock_state = "idle"
>
> State 4: <loop line 179, col 15 to line 184, col 71 of module specs>
> /\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "read_cs", procedure |-> "ReadLock"]>> @@
> <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
> /\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "add_" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "lock")
> /\ writer_count = 1
> /\ reader_count = 0
> /\ lock_state = "idle"
>
> State 5: <add_ line 133, col 15 to line 136, col 64 of module specs>
> /\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "read_cs", procedure |-> "ReadLock"]>> @@
> <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
> /\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "lock_" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "lock")
> /\ writer_count = 1
> /\ reader_count = 1
> /\ lock_state = "idle"
> -----8<-----
>
> Which I think is pretty cool considering the effort that was required
> (read: not much).
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190607105251.GB28207@linux.ibm.com/
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-30 12:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-19 8:39 [PATCH v2 0/2] Refactor snapshot vs nocow writers locking Nikolay Borisov
2019-07-19 8:39 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: Implement DRW lock Nikolay Borisov
2019-07-19 8:39 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] btrfs: convert snapshot/nocow exlcusion to drw lock Nikolay Borisov
2019-07-19 8:48 ` [RFC PATCH] btrfs: Hook btrfs' DRW lock to locktorture infrastructure Nikolay Borisov
2019-08-05 16:36 ` Nathan Chancellor
2019-08-05 18:17 ` David Sterba
2019-07-29 14:13 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Refactor snapshot vs nocow writers locking Valentin Schneider
2019-07-29 15:33 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-07-29 16:32 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-07-30 11:03 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-07-30 12:11 ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2019-07-30 13:36 ` Valentin Schneider
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=356e1044-b676-1028-3b80-a922acfae5b2@suse.com \
--to=nborisov@suse.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@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).