Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:48:23 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Viktor Vafeiadis <viktor@...-sws.org>,
        "parri.andrea@...il.com" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "j.alglave@....ac.uk" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget@...ia.fr" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "akiyks@...il.com" <akiyks@...il.com>,
        "dlustig@...dia.com" <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        "joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "urezki@...il.com" <urezki@...il.com>,
        "quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: memory-model: Add rmw-sequences to the LKMM

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:44:27AM +0000, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Stern [mailto:stern@...land.harvard.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 9:48 PM
> > Viktor (as relayed by Jonas) has pointed out a weakness in the Linux Kernel Memory Model.  Namely, the memory ordering properties of atomic operations are not monotonic: An atomic op with full-barrier semantics does not always provide ordering as strong as one with release-barrier semantics.
> > 
> > The following litmus test illustrates the problem:
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > C atomics-not-monotonic
> > 
> > {}
> > 
> > P0(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> > {
> > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > 	smp_wmb();
> > 	atomic_set(y, 1);
> > }
> > 
> > P1(atomic_t *y)
> > {
> > 	int r1;
> > 
> > 	r1 = atomic_inc_return(y);
> > }
> > 
> > P2(int *x, atomic_t *y)
> > {
> > 	int r2;
> > 	int r3;
> > 
> > 	r2 = atomic_read(y);
> > 	smp_rmb();
> > 	r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > }
> > 
> > exists (2:r2=2 /\ 2:r3=0)
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > The litmus test is allowed as shown with atomic_inc_return(), which has full-barrier semantics.  But if the operation is changed to atomic_inc_return_release(), which only has release-barrier semantics, the litmus test is forbidden.  Clearly this violates monotonicity.
> > 
> > The reason is because the LKMM treats full-barrier atomic ops as if they were written:
> > 
> > 	mb();
> > 	load();
> > 	store();
> > 	mb();
> > 
> > (where the load() and store() are the two parts of an atomic RMW op), whereas it treats release-barrier atomic ops as if they were written:
> > 
> > 	load();
> > 	release_barrier();
> > 	store();
> > 
> > The difference is that here the release barrier orders the load part of the atomic op before the store part with A-cumulativity, whereas the mb()'s above do not.  This means that release-barrier atomics can effectively extend the cumul-fence relation but full-barrier atomics cannot.
> > 
> > To resolve this problem we introduce the rmw-sequence relation, representing an arbitrarily long sequence of atomic RMW operations in which each operation reads from the previous one, and explicitly allow it to extend cumul-fence.  This modification of the memory model is sound; it holds for PPC because of B-cumulativity, it holds for TSO and ARM64 because of other-multicopy atomicity, and we can assume that atomic ops on all other architectures will be implemented so as to make it hold for them.
> > 
> > For similar reasons we also allow rmw-sequence to extend the w-post-bounded relation, which is analogous to cumul-fence in some ways.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Viktor Vafeiadis <viktor@...-sws.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> > CC: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>

Queued for the v6.3 merge window (the one after the upcoming one),
thank you both!

							Thanx, Paul

> best wishes,
> jonas
> 
> 
> > ---
> > 
> >  tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt |   30 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat              |    5 ++-
> >  2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > ===================================================================
> > --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> > @@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ let ppo = to-r | to-w | fence | (po-unlo
> >  
> >  (* Propagation: Ordering from release operations and strong fences. *)  let A-cumul(r) = (rfe ; [Marked])? ; r
> > +let rmw-sequence = (rf ; rmw)*
> >  let cumul-fence = [Marked] ; (A-cumul(strong-fence | po-rel) | wmb |
> > -	po-unlock-lock-po) ; [Marked]
> > +	po-unlock-lock-po) ; [Marked] ; rmw-sequence
> >  let prop = [Marked] ; (overwrite & ext)? ; cumul-fence* ;
> >  	[Marked] ; rfe? ; [Marked]
> >  
> > @@ -174,7 +175,7 @@ let vis = cumul-fence* ; rfe? ; [Marked]  let w-pre-bounded = [Marked] ; (addr | fence)?
> >  let r-pre-bounded = [Marked] ; (addr | nonrw-fence |
> >  	([R4rmb] ; fencerel(Rmb) ; [~Noreturn]))?
> > -let w-post-bounded = fence? ; [Marked]
> > +let w-post-bounded = fence? ; [Marked] ; rmw-sequence
> >  let r-post-bounded = (nonrw-fence | ([~Noreturn] ; fencerel(Rmb) ; [R4rmb]))? ;
> >  	[Marked]
> >  
> > Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> > ===================================================================
> > --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> > +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt
> > @@ -1006,6 +1006,36 @@ order.  Equivalently,  where the rmw relation links the read and write events making up each  atomic update.  This is what the LKMM's "atomic" axiom says.
> >  
> > +Atomic rmw updates play one more role in the LKMM: They can form "rmw 
> > +sequences".  An rmw sequence is simply a bunch of atomic updates where 
> > +each update reads from the previous one.  Written using events, it 
> > +looks like this:
> > +
> > +	Z0 ->rf Y1 ->rmw Z1 ->rf ... ->rf Yn ->rmw Zn,
> > +
> > +where Z0 is some store event and n can be any number (even 0, in the 
> > +degenerate case).  We write this relation as: Z0 ->rmw-sequence Zn.
> > +Note that this implies Z0 and Zn are stores to the same variable.
> > +
> > +Rmw sequences have a special property in the LKMM: They can extend the 
> > +cumul-fence relation.  That is, if we have:
> > +
> > +	U ->cumul-fence X -> rmw-sequence Y
> > +
> > +then also U ->cumul-fence Y.  Thinking about this in terms of the 
> > +operational model, U ->cumul-fence X says that the store U propagates 
> > +to each CPU before the store X does.  Then the fact that X and Y are 
> > +linked by an rmw sequence means that U also propagates to each CPU 
> > +before Y does.  In an analogous way, rmw sequences can also extend the 
> > +w-post-bounded relation defined below in the PLAIN ACCESSES AND DATA 
> > +RACES section.
> > +
> > +(The notion of rmw sequences in the LKMM is similar to, but not quite 
> > +the same as, that of release sequences in the C11 memory model.  They 
> > +were added to the LKMM to fix an obscure bug; without them, atomic 
> > +updates with full-barrier semantics did not always guarantee ordering 
> > +at least as strong as atomic updates with release-barrier semantics.)
> > +
> >  
> >  THE PRESERVED PROGRAM ORDER RELATION: ppo
> >  -----------------------------------------
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists