From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1034048AbeCAShh (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:37:37 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:51152 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1033985AbeCAShf (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:37:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 10:37:58 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Alan Stern Cc: Boqun Feng , LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa , Andrea Parri , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Nicholas Piggin , Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon , Kernel development list Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2 RFC] tools/memory-model: redefine rb in terms of rcu-fence Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180301015531.olvuu5g35eta5xhr@tardis> <20180301174906.GC3777@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180301174906.GC3777@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18030118-0036-0000-0000-000002C8D283 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00008609; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000254; SDB=6.00996903; UDB=6.00506853; IPR=6.00776221; MB=3.00019804; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-03-01 18:37:31 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18030118-0037-0000-0000-000043818703 Message-Id: <20180301183758.GA31761@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-03-01_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1803010229 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:49:06AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:49:05AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > > > +let rec rcu-fence = gp | > > > > + (gp ; rcu-link ; rscs) | > > > > + (rscs ; rcu-link ; gp) | > > > > + (gp ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; rscs) | > > > > + (rscs ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; gp) | > > > > + (rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence) > > > > + > > > > +(* rb orders instructions just as pb does *) > > > > +let rb = prop ; rcu-fence ; hb* ; pb* > > > > > > > > irreflexive rb as rcu > > > > > > I wonder whether we can simplify things as: > > > > > > let rec rcu-fence = > > > (gp; rcu-link; rscs) | > > > (rscs; rcu-link; gp) | > > > (gp; rcu-link; rcu-fence; rcu-link; rscs) | > > > (rscs; rcu-link; rcu-fence; rcu-link; gp) > > > > > > (* gp and rcu-fence; rcu-link; rcu-fence removed *) > > > > > > let rb = prop; rcu-fence; hb*; pb* > > > > > > acycle rb as rcu > > > > > > In this way, "rcu-fence" is defined as "any sequence containing as many > > > grace periods as RCU read-side critical sections (joined by rcu-link)." > > > Note that "rcu-link" contains "gp", so we don't miss the case where > > > there are more grace periods. And since we use "acycle" now, so we don't > > > need "rcu-fence; rcu-link; rcu-fence" to build "rcu-fence" recursively. > > > > Would this definition of rcu-fence work for a sequence such as (leaving > > out the intermediate rcu-link parts): > > > > gp gp gp rscs rscs gp rscs rscs > > > > ? I don't think it would. Yes, if you had a cycle of that form then > > your "rcu" axiom would detect it, but at some point we might want to > > use rcu-fence for some other purpose, one that doesn't involve cycles. > > Let's see, that would map to this: > > auto/RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R.litmus > > And no, there is no such automatically generated litmus test. Let's > try reversing the "gp" and "rscs", which should have the same effect > courtesy of symmetry: > > auto/RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G.litmus > > And that one doesn't exist, either. So much for random test generation! :-/ > > Clearly time to add them. And here is what herd has to say about them: > > l$ sh scripts/checklitmus.sh /tmp/auto/C-RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R.litmus > Herd options: -conf linux-kernel.cfg > Observation /tmp/auto/C-RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R Sometimes 1 255 > ^^^ Unexpected non-Never verification > 0inputs+32outputs (0major+2605minor)pagefaults 0swaps > $ sh scripts/checklitmus.sh /tmp/auto/C-RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G.litmus > Herd options: -conf linux-kernel.cfg > Observation /tmp/auto/C-RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G Sometimes 1 255 > ^^^ Unexpected non-Never verification > 0inputs+32outputs (0major+2620minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > In other words, they are in fact misclassified as "Sometimes" when they > should be "Never". I have my diffs below in case I misapplied Boqun's > change. > > With Alan's original formulation, these two litmus tests are correctly > handled: > > $ sh scripts/checklitmus.sh /tmp/auto/C-RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R.litmus > Herd options: -conf linux-kernel.cfg > Observation /tmp/auto/C-RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R Never 0 255 > 1.61user 0.00system 0:01.63elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 9572maxresident)k > $ sh scripts/checklitmus.sh /tmp/auto/C-RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G.litmus > Herd options: -conf linux-kernel.cfg > Observation /tmp/auto/C-RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G Never 0 255 > 1.84user 0.01system 0:01.92elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 10112maxresident)k And as Andrea pointed out off-list, I did indeed mess up Boqun's change. I forgot to change the "irreflexive" into "acyclic". Applying that change makes everything work. Please accept my apologies for my confusion! Thanx, Paul > > > I prefer this because we already treat "gp" as "strong-fence", which > > > already is a "rcu-link". > > > > That's a good point; it had not occurred to me. > > And if I remove the "gp" but leave the last line, it does properly > classify the two new litmus tests. > > Thanx, Paul > > > > Also, recurisively extending rcu-fence with > > > itself is exactly calculating the transitive closure, which we can avoid > > > by using a "acycle" rule. Besides, it looks more consistent with hb and > > > pb. > > > > That _had_ occurred to me. But I couldn't see any way to do it while > > still defining rcu-fence correctly. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat > index 1e5c4653dd12..75d3c225146c 100644 > --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat > +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat > @@ -106,12 +106,11 @@ let rcu-link = hb* ; pb* ; prop > * Any sequence containing at least as many grace periods as RCU read-side > * critical sections (joined by rcu-link) acts as a generalized strong fence. > *) > -let rec rcu-fence = gp | > +let rec rcu-fence = > (gp ; rcu-link ; rscs) | > (rscs ; rcu-link ; gp) | > (gp ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; rscs) | > - (rscs ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; gp) | > - (rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence) > + (rscs ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; gp) > > (* rb orders instructions just as pb does *) > let rb = prop ; rcu-fence ; hb* ; pb*