Linux-Doc Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
	Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] tools/memory-model: Add a litmus test for atomic_set()
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:01:02 +0100
Message-ID: <20200225130102.wsz3bpyhjmcru7os@yquem.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200225073451.GP69864@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net>

Hi,

As far as I can remember I have implemented atomic_add_unless in herd7.

As to your test, I have first run a slightly modified version of your test
as a kernel module (using klitmus7).

C atomic_add_unless-dependency
{
        atomic_t y = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
}
  P0(int *x, atomic_t *y, int *z)
{
        int r0;
        r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
        if (atomic_add_unless((atomic_t *)y, 2, r0))
                WRITE_ONCE(*z, 42);
        else
                WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
}
  P1(int *x, int *z)
{
        int r0;
        r0 = smp_load_acquire(z);
        WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
}
locations [y]
exists
(1:r0 = 1 /\ 0:r0 = 1)


The test is also accepted by herd7, here producing teh same final values
as actual run on a raspberry PI4B.

--Luc

> Luc,
> 
> Could you have a look at the problem Andrea and I discuss here? It seems
> that you have done a few things in herd for atomic_add_unless() in
> particular, and based on the experiments of Andrea and me, seems
> atomic_add_unless() works correctly. So can you confirm that herd now
> can handle atomic_add_unless() or there is still something missing?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 06:40:03PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 09:12:13AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> > > > +C Atomic-set-observable-to-RMW
> > > > +
> > > > +(*
> > > > + * Result: Never
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Test of the result of atomic_set() must be observable to atomic RMWs.
> > > > + *)
> > > > +
> > > > +{
> > > > +	atomic_t v = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +P0(atomic_t *v)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	(void)atomic_add_unless(v,1,0);
> > > 
> > > We blacklisted this primitive some time ago, cf. section "LIMITATIONS",
> > > entry (6b) in tools/memory-model/README; the discussion was here:
> > > 
> > >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180829211053.20531-3-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > > 
> > 
> > And in an email replying to that email, you just tried and seemed
> > atomic_add_unless() works ;-)
> > 
> > > but unfortunately I can't remember other details at the moment: maybe
> > > it is just a matter of or the proper time to update that section.
> > > 
> > 
> > I spend a few time looking into the changes in herd, the dependency
> > problem seems to be as follow:
> > 
> > For atomic_add_unless(ptr, a, u), the return value (true or false)
> > depends on both *ptr and u, this is different than other atomic RMW,
> > whose return value only depends on *ptr. Considering the following
> > litmus test:
> > 
> > 	C atomic_add_unless-dependency
> > 
> > 	{
> > 		int y = 1;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	P0(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> > 	{
> > 		int r0;
> > 		int r1;
> > 		int r2;
> > 
> > 		r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > 		if (atomic_add_unless(y, 2, r0))
> > 			WRITE_ONCE(*z, 42);
> > 		else
> > 			WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	P1(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> > 	{
> > 		int r0;
> > 
> > 		r0 = smp_load_acquire(z);
> > 
> > 		WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	exists
> > 	(1:r0 = 1 /\ 0:r0 = 1)
> > 
> > , the exist-clause will never trigger, however if we replace
> > "atomic_add_unless(y, 2, r0)" with "atomic_add_unless(y, 2, 1)", the
> > write on *z and the read from *x on CPU 0 are not ordered, so we could
> > observe the exist-clause triggered.
> > 
> > I just tried with the latest herd, and herd can work out this
> > dependency. So I think we are good now and can change the limitation
> > section in the document. But I will wait for Luc's input for this. Luc,
> > did I get this correct? Is there any other limitation on
> > atomic_add_unless() now?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > >   Andrea

  reply index

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-14  4:01 [RFC 0/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs Boqun Feng
2020-02-14  4:01 ` [RFC 1/3] Documentation/locking/atomic: Fix atomic-set litmus test Boqun Feng
2020-02-14  4:01 ` [RFC 2/3] tools/memory-model: Add a litmus test for atomic_set() Boqun Feng
2020-02-14  8:12   ` Andrea Parri
2020-02-14 10:40     ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-25  7:34       ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-25 13:01         ` Luc Maranget [this message]
2020-02-26  2:51           ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-14 15:47   ` Alan Stern
2020-02-14 23:52     ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-17 11:02       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-14  4:01 ` [RFC 3/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus test for RMW + smp_mb__after_atomic() Boqun Feng
2020-02-14  6:15   ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-14  8:18     ` Andrea Parri
2020-02-14  8:20       ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-14 15:58   ` Alan Stern
2020-02-15  0:09     ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-14  9:55 ` [RFC 0/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-14 10:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-14 15:27 ` Alan Stern
2020-02-14 23:39   ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-15 15:25   ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-16  5:43     ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-16 12:06       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-16 16:16         ` Alan Stern
2020-02-17  1:27           ` Boqun Feng

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=20200225130102.wsz3bpyhjmcru7os@yquem.inria.fr \
    --to=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
    --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
    --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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

Linux-Doc Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/0 linux-doc/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-doc linux-doc/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc \
		linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-doc

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-doc


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git