[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2003201049230.27303-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:59:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] LKMM: Add litmus test for RCU GP guarantee where
updater frees object
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This adds an example for the important RCU grace period guarantee, which
> shows an RCU reader can never span a grace period.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> ---
> .../litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus | 40 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus
>
> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..c4682502dd296
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/RCU+sync+free.litmus
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +C RCU+sync+free
> +
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
The following comment needs some rewriting. The grammar is somewhat
awkward and a very important "not" is missing.
> + * This litmus test demonstrates that an RCU reader can never see a write after
> + * the grace period, if it saw writes that happen before the grace period.
An RCU reader can never see a write that follows a grace period if it
did _not_ see writes that precede the grace period.
> This
> + * is a typical pattern of RCU usage, where the write before the grace period
> + * assigns a pointer, and the writes after destroy the object that the pointer
> + * points to.
... that the pointer used to point to.
> + *
> + * This guarantee also implies, an RCU reader can never span a grace period and
> + * is an important RCU grace period memory ordering guarantee.
Unnecessary comma, and it is not clear what "This" refers to. The
whole sentence should be phrased differently:
This is one implication of the RCU grace-period guarantee,
which says (among other things) that an RCU reader cannot span
a grace period.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists