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>,
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.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by release-acquire and by locks
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:06:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180622090651.GB6933@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806211322160.2381-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM
> should enforce ordering of writes by release-acquire chains and by
> locking. In other words, given the following code:
>
> WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
> spin_unlock(&s):
> spin_lock(&s);
> WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
>
> or the following:
>
> smp_store_release(&x, 1);
> r1 = smp_load_acquire(&x); // r1 = 1
> WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
>
> the stores to x and y should be propagated in order to all other CPUs,
> even though those other CPUs might not access the lock s or be part of
> the release-acquire chain. In terms of the memory model, this means
> that rel-rf-acq-po should be part of the cumul-fence relation.
>
> All the architectures supported by the Linux kernel (including RISC-V)
> do behave this way, albeit for varying reasons. Therefore this patch
> changes the model in accordance with the developers' wishes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
This patch changes the "Result" for ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce,
so it should update the corresponding comment/README.
Reviewed-and-Tested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Andrea
>
> ---
>
>
> [as1871]
>
>
> tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat | 2
> 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: usb-4.x/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-4.x.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> +++ usb-4.x/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ let ppo = to-r | to-w | fence
>
> (* Propagation: Ordering from release operations and strong fences. *)
> let A-cumul(r) = rfe? ; r
> -let cumul-fence = A-cumul(strong-fence | po-rel) | wmb
> +let cumul-fence = A-cumul(strong-fence | po-rel) | wmb | rel-rf-acq-po
> let prop = (overwrite & ext)? ; cumul-fence* ; rfe?
>
> (*
> Index: usb-4.x/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-4.x.orig/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> +++ usb-4.x/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> @@ -1897,3 +1897,84 @@ non-deadlocking executions. For example
> Is it possible to end up with r0 = 36 at the end? The LKMM will tell
> you it is not, but the model won't mention that this is because P1
> will self-deadlock in the executions where it stores 36 in y.
> +
> +In the LKMM, locks and release-acquire chains cause stores to
> +propagate in order. For example:
> +
> + int x, y, z;
> +
> + P0()
> + {
> + WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
> + smp_store_release(&y, 1);
> + }
> +
> + P1()
> + {
> + int r1;
> +
> + r1 = smp_load_acquire(&y);
> + WRITE_ONCE(z, 1);
> + }
> +
> + P2()
> + {
> + int r2, r3, r4;
> +
> + r2 = READ_ONCE(z);
> + smp_rmb();
> + r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
> + r4 = READ_ONCE(y);
> + }
> +
> +If r1 = 1 and r2 = 1 at the end, then both r3 and r4 must also be 1.
> +In other words, the smp_store_release() read by the smp_load_acquire()
> +together act as a sort of inter-processor fence, forcing the stores to
> +x and y to propagate to P2 before the store to z does, regardless of
> +the fact that P2 doesn't execute any release or acquire instructions.
> +This conclusion would hold even if P0 and P1 were on the same CPU, so
> +long as r1 = 1.
> +
> +We have mentioned that the LKMM treats locks as acquires and unlocks
> +as releases. Therefore it should not be surprising that something
> +analogous to this ordering also holds for locks:
> +
> + int x, y;
> + spinlock_t s;
> +
> + P0()
> + {
> + spin_lock(&s);
> + WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
> + spin_unlock(&s);
> + }
> +
> + P1()
> + {
> + int r1;
> +
> + spin_lock(&s);
> + r1 = READ_ONCE(x):
> + WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
> + spin_unlock(&s);
> + }
> +
> + P2()
> + {
> + int r2, r3;
> +
> + r2 = READ_ONCE(y);
> + smp_rmb();
> + r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
> + }
> +
> +If r1 = 1 at the end (implying that P1's critical section executes
> +after P0's) and r2 = 1, then r3 must be 1; the ordering of the
> +critical sections forces the store to x to propagate to P2 before the
> +store to y does.
> +
> +In both versions of this scenario, the store-propagation ordering is
> +not required by the operational model. However, it does happen on all
> +the architectures supporting the Linux kernel, and kernel developers
> +seem to expect it; they have requested that this behavior be included
> +in the LKMM.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-22 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-21 17:27 [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by release-acquire and by locks Alan Stern
2018-06-21 18:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-22 3:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-22 8:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-22 8:09 ` Will Deacon
2018-06-22 9:55 ` Will Deacon
2018-06-22 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-22 10:38 ` Will Deacon
2018-06-22 11:25 ` Andrea Parri
2018-06-22 16:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-22 18:09 ` Alan Stern
2018-06-22 18:30 ` Will Deacon
2018-06-22 19:11 ` Alan Stern
2018-06-22 20:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-04 11:53 ` Will Deacon
2018-06-25 8:19 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-03 17:28 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-04 11:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-04 12:13 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-05 14:23 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-05 15:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-04 12:11 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-05 14:00 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-05 14:44 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-05 15:16 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-05 15:35 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-05 14:21 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-05 14:46 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-05 14:57 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-05 15:15 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-05 15:09 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-06 20:37 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-06 21:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 16:52 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-09 17:29 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-09 19:18 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-05 15:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-05 15:39 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-05 16:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-05 17:06 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-05 15:44 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-05 16:22 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-05 16:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-05 18:12 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-05 18:38 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-05 18:44 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-05 23:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-05 23:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-06 9:25 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-06 14:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-06-25 7:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-25 8:29 ` Andrea Parri
2018-06-25 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-22 9:06 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2018-06-22 19:23 ` 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=20180622090651.GB6933@andrea \
--to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.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).