Message-ID: <3684b88b-5236-4a28-6ab9-dd57b1a2780d@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 21:18:27 +0100
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...a.com, mingo@...nel.org, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com
Subject: Re: Current LKMM patch disposition



On 2/4/2023 2:49 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:28:35PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 04:48:43PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> Here is what I currently have for LKMM patches:
>>>
>>> 289e1c89217d4 ("locking/memory-barriers.txt: Improve documentation for writel() example")
>>> ebd50e2947de9 ("tools: memory-model: Add rmw-sequences to the LKMM")
>>> aae0c8a50d6d3 ("Documentation: Fixed a typo in atomic_t.txt")
>>> 9ba7d3b3b826e ("tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry dependencies")
>>>
>>> 	Queued for the upcoming (v6.3) merge window.
>>>
>>> c7637e2a8a27 ("tools/memory-model: Update some warning labels")
>>> 7862199d4df2 ("tools/memory-model: Unify UNLOCK+LOCK pairings to po-unlock-lock-")
>>>
>>> 	Are ready for the next (v6.4) merge window.  If there is some
>>> 	reason that they should instead go into v6.3, please let us
>>> 	all know.
>>>
>>> a6cd5214b5ba ("tools/memory-model: Document LKMM test procedure")
>>>
>>> 	This goes onto the lkmm-dev pile because it is documenting how
>>> 	to use those scripts.
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y9GPVnK6lQbY6vCK@rowland.harvard.edu/
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230126134604.2160-3-jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230203201913.2555494-1-joel@joelfernandes.org/
>>> 5d871b280e7f ("tools/memory-model: Add smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock()")
>>>
>>> 	These need review and perhaps further adjustment.
>>>
>>> So, am I missing any?  Are there any that need to be redirected?
>> The "Provide exact semantics for SRCU" patch should have:
>>
>> 	Portions suggested by Boqun Feng and Jonas Oberhauser.
>>
>> added at the end, together with your Reported-by: tag.  With that, I
>> think it can be queued for 6.4.
> Thank you!  Does the patch shown below work for you?
>
> (I have tentatively queued this, but can easily adjust or replace it.)
>
> 							Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU semantics
>
> LKMM has long provided only approximate handling of SRCU read-side
> critical sections.  This has not been a pressing problem because LKMM's
> traditional handling is correct for the common cases of non-overlapping
> and properly nested critical sections.  However, LKMM's traditional
> handling of partially overlapping critical sections incorrectly fuses
> them into one large critical section.
>
> For example, consider the following litmus test:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> C C-srcu-nest-5
>
> (*
>   * Result: Sometimes
>   *
>   * This demonstrates non-nested overlapping of SRCU read-side critical
>   * sections.  Unlike RCU, SRCU critical sections do not unconditionally
>   * nest.
>   *)
>
> {}
>
> P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1)
> {
>          int r1;
>          int r2;
>          int r3;
>          int r4;
>
>          r3 = srcu_read_lock(s1);
>          r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
>          r4 = srcu_read_lock(s1);
>          srcu_read_unlock(s1, r3);
>          r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
>          srcu_read_unlock(s1, r4);
> }
>
> P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1)
> {
>          WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
>          synchronize_srcu(s1);
>          WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> }
>
> locations [0:r1]
> exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Current mainline incorrectly flattens the two critical sections into
> one larger critical section, giving "Never" instead of the correct
> "Sometimes":
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg C-srcu-nest-5.litmus
> Test C-srcu-nest-5 Allowed
> States 3
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0;
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1;
> 0:r1=1; 0:r2=1;
> No
> Witnesses
> Positive: 0 Negative: 3
> Flag srcu-bad-nesting
> Condition exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
> Observation C-srcu-nest-5 Never 0 3
> Time C-srcu-nest-5 0.01
> Hash=e692c106cf3e84e20f12991dc438ff1b
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To its credit, it does complain about bad nesting.  But with this
> commit we get the following result, which has the virtue of being
> correct:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg C-srcu-nest-5.litmus
> Test C-srcu-nest-5 Allowed
> States 4
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0;
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1;
> 0:r1=1; 0:r2=0;
> 0:r1=1; 0:r2=1;
> Ok
> Witnesses
> Positive: 1 Negative: 3
> Condition exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
> Observation C-srcu-nest-5 Sometimes 1 3
> Time C-srcu-nest-5 0.05
> Hash=e692c106cf3e84e20f12991dc438ff1b
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In addition, there are new srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read()
> functions on their way to mainline.  Roughly speaking, these are to
> srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() as down() and up() are to
> mutex_lock() and mutex_unlock().  The key point is that
> srcu_down_read() can execute in one process and the matching
> srcu_up_read() in another, as shown in this litmus test:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> C C-srcu-nest-6
>
> (*
>   * Result: Never
>   *
>   * This would be valid for srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read().
>   *)
>
> {}
>
> P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx, int *f)
> {
>          int r2;
>          int r3;
>
>          r3 = srcu_down_read(s1);
>          WRITE_ONCE(*idx, r3);
>          r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
>          smp_store_release(f, 1);
> }
>
> P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx, int *f)
> {
>          int r1;
>          int r3;
>          int r4;
>
>          r4 = smp_load_acquire(f);
>          r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
>          r3 = READ_ONCE(*idx);
>          srcu_up_read(s1, r3);
> }
>
> P2(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1)
> {
>          WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
>          synchronize_srcu(s1);
>          WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> }
>
> locations [0:r1]
> filter (1:r4=1)
> exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> When run on current mainline, this litmus test gets a complaint about
> an unknown macro srcu_down_read().  With this commit:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg C-srcu-nest-6.litmus
> Test C-srcu-nest-6 Allowed
> States 3
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r1=0;
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=0;
> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=1;
> No
> Witnesses
> Positive: 0 Negative: 3
> Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
> Observation C-srcu-nest-6 Never 0 3
> Time C-srcu-nest-6 0.02
> Hash=c1f20257d052ca5e899be508bedcb2a1
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Note that the user must supply the flag "f" and the "filter" clause,
> similar to what must be done to emulate call_rcu().
>
> The commit works by treating srcu_read_lock()/srcu_down_read() as
> loads and srcu_read_unlock()/srcu_up_read() as stores.  This allows us
> to determine which unlock matches which lock by looking for a data
> dependency between them.  In order for this to work properly, the data
> dependencies have to be tracked through stores to intermediate
> variables such as "idx" in the litmus test above; this is handled by
> the new carry-srcu-data relation.  But it's important here (and in the
> existing carry-dep relation) to avoid tracking the dependencies
> through SRCU unlock stores.  Otherwise, in situations resembling:
>
> 	A: r1 = srcu_read_lock(s);
> 	B: srcu_read_unlock(s, r1);
> 	C: r2 = srcu_read_lock(s);
> 	D: srcu_read_unlock(s, r2);
>
> it would look as if D was dependent on both A and C, because "s" would
> appear to be an intermediate variable written by B and read by C.
> This explains the complications in the definitions of carry-srcu-dep
> and carry-dep.
>
> As a debugging aid, the commit adds a check for errors in which the
> value returned by one call to srcu_read_lock()/srcu_down_read() is
> passed to more than one instance of srcu_read_unlock()/srcu_up_read().
>
> Finally, since these SRCU-related primitives are now treated as
> ordinary reads and writes, we have to add them into the lists of
> marked accesses (i.e., not subject to data races) and lock-related
> accesses (i.e., one shouldn't try to access an srcu_struct with a
> non-lock-related primitive such as READ_ONCE() or a plain write).
>
> Portions of this approach were suggested by Boqun Feng and Jonas
> Oberhauser.
>
> [ paulmck: Fix space-before-tab whitespace nit. ]
>
> Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>

Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>

>
> ---
>
>   tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell |   17 +++++------------
>   tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def  |    6 ++++--
>   tools/memory-model/lock.cat          |    6 +++---
>   3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
> @@ -57,20 +57,13 @@ flag ~empty Rcu-lock \ domain(rcu-rscs)
>   flag ~empty Rcu-unlock \ range(rcu-rscs) as unmatched-rcu-unlock
>   
>   (* Compute matching pairs of nested Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *)
> -let srcu-rscs = let rec
> -	    unmatched-locks = Srcu-lock \ domain(matched)
> -	and unmatched-unlocks = Srcu-unlock \ range(matched)
> -	and unmatched = unmatched-locks | unmatched-unlocks
> -	and unmatched-po = ([unmatched] ; po ; [unmatched]) & loc
> -	and unmatched-locks-to-unlocks =
> -		([unmatched-locks] ; po ; [unmatched-unlocks]) & loc
> -	and matched = matched | (unmatched-locks-to-unlocks \
> -		(unmatched-po ; unmatched-po))
> -	in matched
> +let carry-srcu-data = (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rf)*
> +let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; carry-srcu-data ; data ; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc
>   
>   (* Validate nesting *)
>   flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unmatched-srcu-lock
>   flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unmatched-srcu-unlock
> +flag ~empty (srcu-rscs^-1 ; srcu-rscs) \ id as multiple-srcu-matches
>   
>   (* Check for use of synchronize_srcu() inside an RCU critical section *)
>   flag ~empty rcu-rscs & (po ; [Sync-srcu] ; po) as invalid-sleep
> @@ -80,11 +73,11 @@ flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs)
>   
>   (* Compute marked and plain memory accesses *)
>   let Marked = (~M) | IW | Once | Release | Acquire | domain(rmw) | range(rmw) |
> -		LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU
> +		LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU | Srcu-lock | Srcu-unlock
>   let Plain = M \ Marked
>   
>   (* Redefine dependencies to include those carried through plain accesses *)
> -let carry-dep = (data ; rfi)*
> +let carry-dep = (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rfi)*
>   let addr = carry-dep ; addr
>   let ctrl = carry-dep ; ctrl
>   let data = carry-dep ; data
> Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
> @@ -49,8 +49,10 @@ synchronize_rcu() { __fence{sync-rcu}; }
>   synchronize_rcu_expedited() { __fence{sync-rcu}; }
>   
>   // SRCU
> -srcu_read_lock(X)  __srcu{srcu-lock}(X)
> -srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __srcu{srcu-unlock}(X,Y); }
> +srcu_read_lock(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X)
> +srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); }
> +srcu_down_read(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X)
> +srcu_up_read(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); }
>   synchronize_srcu(X)  { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }
>   synchronize_srcu_expedited(X)  { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }
>   
> Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/lock.cat
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/lock.cat
> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/lock.cat
> @@ -36,9 +36,9 @@ let RU = try RU with emptyset
>   (* Treat RL as a kind of LF: a read with no ordering properties *)
>   let LF = LF | RL
>   
> -(* There should be no ordinary R or W accesses to spinlocks *)
> -let ALL-LOCKS = LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RU
> -flag ~empty [M \ IW] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as mixed-lock-accesses
> +(* There should be no ordinary R or W accesses to spinlocks or SRCU structs *)
> +let ALL-LOCKS = LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RU | Srcu-lock | Srcu-unlock | Sync-srcu
> +flag ~empty [M \ IW \ ALL-LOCKS] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as mixed-lock-accesses
>   
>   (* Link Lock-Reads to their RMW-partner Lock-Writes *)
>   let lk-rmw = ([LKR] ; po-loc ; [LKW]) \ (po ; po)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists