[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190621084129.GA6827@andrea>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:41:29 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tools: memory-model: Improve data-race detection
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:55:58AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Herbert Xu recently reported a problem concerning RCU and compiler
> barriers. In the course of discussing the problem, he put forth a
> litmus test which illustrated a serious defect in the Linux Kernel
> Memory Model's data-race-detection code.
>
> The defect was that the LKMM assumed visibility and executes-before
> ordering of plain accesses had to be mediated by marked accesses. In
> Herbert's litmus test this wasn't so, and the LKMM claimed the litmus
> test was allowed and contained a data race although neither is true.
>
> In fact, plain accesses can be ordered by fences even in the absence
> of marked accesses. In most cases this doesn't matter, because most
> fences only order accesses within a single thread. But the rcu-fence
> relation is different; it can order (and induce visibility between)
> accesses in different threads -- events which otherwise might be
> concurrent. This makes it relevant to data-race detection.
>
> This patch makes two changes to the memory model to incorporate the
> new insight:
>
> If a store is separated by a fence from another access,
> the store is necessarily visible to the other access (as
> reflected in the ww-vis and wr-vis relations). Similarly,
> if a load is separated by a fence from another access then
> the load necessarily executes before the other access (as
> reflected in the rw-xbstar relation).
>
> If a store is separated by a strong fence from a marked access
> then it is necessarily visible to any access that executes
> after the marked access (as reflected in the ww-vis and wr-vis
> relations).
>
> With these changes, the LKMM gives the desired result for Herbert's
> litmus test and other related ones.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Reported-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
For the entire series:
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Two nits, but up to Paul AFAIAC:
- This is a first time for "tools: memory-model:" in Subject; we were
kind of converging to "tools/memory-model:"...
- The report preceded the patch; we might as well reflect this in the
order of the tags.
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists