Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:49:37 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2 RFC] tools/memory-model: redefine rb in terms of
 rcu-fence
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802281511320.1421-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20180301015531.olvuu5g35eta5xhr@tardis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180301015531.olvuu5g35eta5xhr@tardis>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180301044937.GY3777@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:55:31AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 03:13:54PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This patch reorganizes the definition of rb in the Linux Kernel Memory
> > Consistency Model.  The relation is now expressed in terms of
> > rcu-fence, which consists of a sequence of gp and rscs links separated
> > by rcu-link links, in which the number of occurrences of gp is >= the
> > number of occurrences of rscs.
> > 
> > Arguments similar to those published in
> > http://diy.inria.fr/linux/long.pdf show that rcu-fence behaves like an
> > inter-CPU strong fence.  Furthermore, the definition of rb in terms of
> > rcu-fence is highly analogous to the definition of pb in terms of
> > strong-fence, which can help explain why rcu-path expresses a form of
> > temporal ordering.
> > 
> > This change should not affect the semantics of the memory model, just
> > its internal organization.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > v2: Rebase on top of the preceding patch which renames "link" to
> > "rcu-link" and "rcu-path" to "rb".  Add back the missing "rec" keyword
> > in the definition of rcu-fence.  Minor editing improvements in
> > explanation.txt.
> > 
> > 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
> > @@ -102,20 +102,27 @@ let rscs = po ; crit^-1 ; po?
> >   *)
> >  let rcu-link = hb* ; pb* ; prop
> >  
> > -(* Chains that affect the RCU grace-period guarantee *)
> > -let gp-link = gp ; rcu-link
> > -let rscs-link = rscs ; rcu-link
> > -
> >  (*
> > - * A cycle containing at least as many grace periods as RCU read-side
> > - * critical sections is forbidden.
> > + * Any sequence containing at least as many grace periods as RCU read-side
> > + * critical sections (joined by rcu-link) acts as a generalized strong fence.
> >   *)
> > -let rec rb =
> > -	gp-link |
> > -	(gp-link ; rscs-link) |
> > -	(rscs-link ; gp-link) |
> > -	(rb ; rb) |
> > -	(gp-link ; rb ; rscs-link) |
> > -	(rscs-link ; rb ; gp-link)
> > +let rec rcu-fence = gp |
> > +	(gp ; rcu-link ; rscs) |
> > +	(rscs ; rcu-link ; gp) |
> > +	(gp ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; rscs) |
> > +	(rscs ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; gp) |
> > +	(rcu-fence ; rcu-link ; rcu-fence)
> > +
> > +(* rb orders instructions just as pb does *)
> > +let rb = prop ; rcu-fence ; hb* ; pb*
> >  
> >  irreflexive rb as rcu
> 
> I wonder whether we can simplify things as:
> 
> 	let rec rcu-fence =
> 	    (gp; rcu-link; rscs) |
> 	    (rscs; rcu-link; gp) |
> 	    (gp; rcu-link; rcu-fence; rcu-link; rscs) |
> 	    (rscs; rcu-link; rcu-fence; rcu-link; gp)
> 	
> 	(* gp and rcu-fence; rcu-link; rcu-fence removed *)
> 	
> 	let rb = prop; rcu-fence; hb*; pb*
> 
> 	acycle rb as rcu
> 
> In this way, "rcu-fence" is defined as "any sequence containing as many
> grace periods as RCU read-side critical sections (joined by rcu-link)."
> Note that "rcu-link" contains "gp", so we don't miss the case where
> there are more grace periods. And since we use "acycle" now, so we don't
> need "rcu-fence; rcu-link; rcu-fence" to build "rcu-fence" recursively.
> 
> I prefer this because we already treat "gp" as "strong-fence", which
> already is a "rcu-link". Also, recurisively extending rcu-fence with
> itself is exactly calculating the transitive closure, which we can avoid
> by using a "acycle" rule. Besides, it looks more consistent with hb and
> pb.

I don't have any opinions from an aesthetics viewpoint, but this change
does correctly handle the automatically generated tests.  I do not see
any performance impact, if anything, about a 10% improvement based on
this 11-process RCU litmus test:

auto/C-RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G.litmus

With the change, about 10.4 seconds, without, about 11.4 seconds.

I am not patient enough to try one of the really large ones, like this one:

auto/C-RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-G.litmus

However, it is in my "litmus" github archive, so please feel free to
try it out.  Though I would suggest working up from those of intermediate
length.

							Thanx, Paul

> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> 
> > +
> > +(*
> > + * The happens-before, propagation, and rcu constraints are all
> > + * expressions of temporal ordering.  They could be replaced by
> > + * a single constraint on an "executes-before" relation, xb:
> > + *
> > + * let xb = hb | pb | rb
> > + * acyclic xb as executes-before
> > + *)
> > 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
> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Explanation of the Linux-Kernel Memory C
> >    19. AND THEN THERE WAS ALPHA
> >    20. THE HAPPENS-BEFORE RELATION: hb
> >    21. THE PROPAGATES-BEFORE RELATION: pb
> > -  22. RCU RELATIONS: rcu-link, gp-link, rscs-link, and rb
> > +  22. RCU RELATIONS: rcu-link, gp, rscs, rcu-fence, and rb
> >    23. ODDS AND ENDS
> >  
> >  
> > @@ -1451,8 +1451,8 @@ they execute means that it cannot have c
> >  the content of the LKMM's "propagation" axiom.
> >  
> >  
> > -RCU RELATIONS: rcu-link, gp-link, rscs-link, and rb
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > +RCU RELATIONS: rcu-link, gp, rscs, rcu-fence, and rb
> > +----------------------------------------------------
> >  
> >  RCU (Read-Copy-Update) is a powerful synchronization mechanism.  It
> >  rests on two concepts: grace periods and read-side critical sections.
> > @@ -1537,49 +1537,100 @@ relation, and the details don't matter u
> >  a somewhat lengthy formal proof.  Pretty much all you need to know
> >  about rcu-link is the information in the preceding paragraph.
> >  
> > -The LKMM goes on to define the gp-link and rscs-link relations.  They
> > -bring grace periods and read-side critical sections into the picture,
> > -in the following way:
> > -
> > -	E ->gp-link F means there is a synchronize_rcu() fence event S
> > -	and an event X such that E ->po S, either S ->po X or S = X,
> > -	and X ->rcu-link F.  In other words, E and F are linked by a
> > -	grace period followed by an instance of rcu-link.
> > -
> > -	E ->rscs-link F means there is a critical section delimited by
> > -	an rcu_read_lock() fence L and an rcu_read_unlock() fence U,
> > -	and an event X such that E ->po U, either L ->po X or L = X,
> > -	and X ->rcu-link F.  Roughly speaking, this says that some
> > -	event in the same critical section as E is linked by rcu-link
> > -	to F.
> > +The LKMM also defines the gp and rscs relations.  They bring grace
> > +periods and read-side critical sections into the picture, in the
> > +following way:
> > +
> > +	E ->gp F means there is a synchronize_rcu() fence event S such
> > +	that E ->po S and either S ->po F or S = F.  In simple terms,
> > +	there is a grace period po-between E and F.
> > +
> > +	E ->rscs F means there is a critical section delimited by an
> > +	rcu_read_lock() fence L and an rcu_read_unlock() fence U, such
> > +	that E ->po U and either L ->po F or L = F.  You can think of
> > +	this as saying that E and F are in the same critical section
> > +	(in fact, it also allows E to be po-before the start of the
> > +	critical section and F to be po-after the end).
> >  
> >  If we think of the rcu-link relation as standing for an extended
> > -"before", then E ->gp-link F says that E executes before a grace
> > -period which ends before F executes.  (In fact it covers more than
> > -this, because it also includes cases where E executes before a grace
> > -period and some store propagates to F's CPU before F executes and
> > -doesn't propagate to some other CPU until after the grace period
> > -ends.)  Similarly, E ->rscs-link F says that E is part of (or before
> > -the start of) a critical section which starts before F executes.
> > +"before", then X ->gp Y ->rcu-link Z says that X executes before a
> > +grace period which ends before Z executes.  (In fact it covers more
> > +than this, because it also includes cases where X executes before a
> > +grace period and some store propagates to Z's CPU before Z executes
> > +but doesn't propagate to some other CPU until after the grace period
> > +ends.)  Similarly, X ->rscs Y ->rcu-link Z says that X is part of (or
> > +before the start of) a critical section which starts before Z
> > +executes.
> > +
> > +The LKMM goes on to define the rcu-fence relation as a sequence of gp
> > +and rscs links separated by rcu-link links, in which the number of gp
> > +links is >= the number of rscs links.  For example:
> > +
> > +	X ->gp Y ->rcu-link Z ->rscs T ->rcu-link U ->gp V
> > +
> > +would imply that X ->rcu-fence V, because this sequence contains two
> > +gp links and only one rscs link.  (It also implies that X ->rcu-fence T
> > +and Z ->rcu-fence V.)  On the other hand:
> > +
> > +	X ->rscs Y ->rcu-link Z ->rscs T ->rcu-link U ->gp V
> > +
> > +does not imply X ->rcu-fence V, because the sequence contains only
> > +one gp link but two rscs links.
> > +
> > +The rcu-fence relation is important because the Grace Period Guarantee
> > +means that rcu-fence acts kind of like a strong fence.  In particular,
> > +if W is a write and we have W ->rcu-fence Z, the Guarantee says that W
> > +will propagate to every CPU before Z executes.
> > +
> > +To prove this in full generality requires some intellectual effort.
> > +We'll consider just a very simple case:
> > +
> > +	W ->gp X ->rcu-link Y ->rscs Z.
> > +
> > +This formula means that there is a grace period G and a critical
> > +section C such that:
> > +
> > +	1. W is po-before G;
> > +
> > +	2. X is equal to or po-after G;
> > +
> > +	3. X comes "before" Y in some sense;
> > +
> > +	4. Y is po-before the end of C;
> > +
> > +	5. Z is equal to or po-after the start of C.
> > +
> > +From 2 - 4 we deduce that the grace period G ends before the critical
> > +section C.  Then the second part of the Grace Period Guarantee says
> > +not only that G starts before C does, but also that W (which executes
> > +on G's CPU before G starts) must propagate to every CPU before C
> > +starts.  In particular, W propagates to every CPU before Z executes
> > +(or finishes executing, in the case where Z is equal to the
> > +rcu_read_lock() fence event which starts C.)  This sort of reasoning
> > +can be expanded to handle all the situations covered by rcu-fence.
> > +
> > +Finally, the LKMM defines the RCU-before (rb) relation in terms of
> > +rcu-fence.  This is done in essentially the same way as the pb
> > +relation was defined in terms of strong-fence.  We will omit the
> > +details; the end result is that E ->rb F implies E must execute before
> > +F, just as E ->pb F does (and for much the same reasons).
> >  
> >  Putting this all together, the LKMM expresses the Grace Period
> > -Guarantee by requiring that there are no cycles consisting of gp-link
> > -and rscs-link links in which the number of gp-link instances is >= the
> > -number of rscs-link instances.  It does this by defining the rb
> > -relation to link events E and F whenever it is possible to pass from E
> > -to F by a sequence of gp-link and rscs-link links with at least as
> > -many of the former as the latter.  The LKMM's "rcu" axiom then says
> > -that there are no events E with E ->rb E.
> > -
> > -Justifying this axiom takes some intellectual effort, but it is in
> > -fact a valid formalization of the Grace Period Guarantee.  We won't
> > -attempt to go through the detailed argument, but the following
> > -analysis gives a taste of what is involved.  Suppose we have a
> > -violation of the first part of the Guarantee: A critical section
> > -starts before a grace period, and some store propagates to the
> > -critical section's CPU before the end of the critical section but
> > -doesn't propagate to some other CPU until after the end of the grace
> > -period.
> > +Guarantee by requiring that the rb relation does not contain a cycle.
> > +Equivalently, this "rcu" axiom requires that there are no events E and
> > +F with E ->rcu-link F ->rcu-fence E.  Or to put it a third way, the
> > +axiom requires that there are no cycles consisting of gp and rscs
> > +alternating with rcu-link, where the number of gp links is >= the
> > +number of rscs links.
> > +
> > +Justifying the axiom isn't easy, but it is in fact a valid
> > +formalization of the Grace Period Guarantee.  We won't attempt to go
> > +through the detailed argument, but the following analysis gives a
> > +taste of what is involved.  Suppose we have a violation of the first
> > +part of the Guarantee: A critical section starts before a grace
> > +period, and some store propagates to the critical section's CPU before
> > +the end of the critical section but doesn't propagate to some other
> > +CPU until after the end of the grace period.
> >  
> >  Putting symbols to these ideas, let L and U be the rcu_read_lock() and
> >  rcu_read_unlock() fence events delimiting the critical section in
> > @@ -1606,11 +1657,14 @@ by rcu-link, yielding:
> >  
> >  	S ->po X ->rcu-link Z ->po U.
> >  
> > -The formulas say that S is po-between F and X, hence F ->gp-link Z
> > -via X.  They also say that Z comes before the end of the critical
> > -section and E comes after its start, hence Z ->rscs-link F via E.  But
> > -now we have a forbidden cycle: F ->gp-link Z ->rscs-link F.  Thus the
> > -"rcu" axiom rules out this violation of the Grace Period Guarantee.
> > +The formulas say that S is po-between F and X, hence F ->gp X.  They
> > +also say that Z comes before the end of the critical section and E
> > +comes after its start, hence Z ->rscs E.  From all this we obtain:
> > +
> > +	F ->gp X ->rcu-link Z ->rscs E ->rcu-link F,
> > +
> > +a forbidden cycle.  Thus the "rcu" axiom rules out this violation of
> > +the Grace Period Guarantee.
> >  
> >  For something a little more down-to-earth, let's see how the axiom
> >  works out in practice.  Consider the RCU code example from above, this
> > @@ -1639,15 +1693,15 @@ time with statement labels added to the
> >  If r2 = 0 at the end then P0's store at X overwrites the value that
> >  P1's load at Z reads from, so we have Z ->fre X and thus Z ->rcu-link X.
> >  In addition, there is a synchronize_rcu() between Y and Z, so therefore
> > -we have Y ->gp-link X.
> > +we have Y ->gp Z.
> >  
> >  If r1 = 1 at the end then P1's load at Y reads from P0's store at W,
> >  so we have W ->rcu-link Y.  In addition, W and X are in the same critical
> > -section, so therefore we have X ->rscs-link Y.
> > +section, so therefore we have X ->rscs W.
> >  
> > -This gives us a cycle, Y ->gp-link X ->rscs-link Y, with one gp-link
> > -and one rscs-link, violating the "rcu" axiom.  Hence the outcome is
> > -not allowed by the LKMM, as we would expect.
> > +Then X ->rscs W ->rcu-link Y ->gp Z ->rcu-link X is a forbidden cycle,
> > +violating the "rcu" axiom.  Hence the outcome is not allowed by the
> > +LKMM, as we would expect.
> >  
> >  For contrast, let's see what can happen in a more complicated example:
> >  
> > @@ -1683,15 +1737,11 @@ For contrast, let's see what can happen
> >  	}
> >  
> >  If r0 = r1 = r2 = 1 at the end, then similar reasoning to before shows
> > -that W ->rscs-link Y via X, Y ->gp-link U via Z, and U ->rscs-link W
> > -via V.  And just as before, this gives a cycle:
> > -
> > -	W ->rscs-link Y ->gp-link U ->rscs-link W.
> > -
> > -However, this cycle has fewer gp-link instances than rscs-link
> > -instances, and consequently the outcome is not forbidden by the LKMM.
> > -The following instruction timing diagram shows how it might actually
> > -occur:
> > +that W ->rscs X ->rcu-link Y ->gp Z ->rcu-link U ->rscs V ->rcu-link W.
> > +However this cycle is not forbidden, because the sequence of relations
> > +contains fewer instances of gp (one) than of rscs (two).  Consequently
> > +the outcome is allowed by the LKMM.  The following instruction timing
> > +diagram shows how it might actually occur:
> >  
> >  P0			P1			P2
> >  --------------------	--------------------	--------------------
> > 
> >