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:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:06:51 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@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>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by
 release-acquire and by locks
Message-ID: <20180622090651.GB6933@andrea>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806211322160.2381-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1806211322160.2381-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM
> should enforce ordering of writes by release-acquire chains and by
> locking.  In other words, given the following code:
> 
> 	WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
> 	spin_unlock(&s):
> 	spin_lock(&s);
> 	WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
> 
> or the following:
> 
> 	smp_store_release(&x, 1);
> 	r1 = smp_load_acquire(&x);	// r1 = 1
> 	WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
> 
> the stores to x and y should be propagated in order to all other CPUs,
> even though those other CPUs might not access the lock s or be part of
> the release-acquire chain.  In terms of the memory model, this means
> that rel-rf-acq-po should be part of the cumul-fence relation.
> 
> All the architectures supported by the Linux kernel (including RISC-V)
> do behave this way, albeit for varying reasons.  Therefore this patch
> changes the model in accordance with the developers' wishes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>

This patch changes the "Result" for ISA2+pooncelock+pooncelock+pombonce,
so it should update the corresponding comment/README.

Reviewed-and-Tested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>

  Andrea


> 
> ---
> 
> 
> [as1871]
> 
> 
>  tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt |   81 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat              |    2 
>  2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> 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
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ let ppo = to-r | to-w | fence
>  
>  (* Propagation: Ordering from release operations and strong fences. *)
>  let A-cumul(r) = rfe? ; r
> -let cumul-fence = A-cumul(strong-fence | po-rel) | wmb
> +let cumul-fence = A-cumul(strong-fence | po-rel) | wmb | rel-rf-acq-po
>  let prop = (overwrite & ext)? ; cumul-fence* ; rfe?
>  
>  (*
> 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
> @@ -1897,3 +1897,84 @@ non-deadlocking executions.  For example
>  Is it possible to end up with r0 = 36 at the end?  The LKMM will tell
>  you it is not, but the model won't mention that this is because P1
>  will self-deadlock in the executions where it stores 36 in y.
> +
> +In the LKMM, locks and release-acquire chains cause stores to
> +propagate in order.  For example:
> +
> +	int x, y, z;
> +
> +	P0()
> +	{
> +		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
> +		smp_store_release(&y, 1);
> +	}
> +
> +	P1()
> +	{
> +		int r1;
> +
> +		r1 = smp_load_acquire(&y);
> +		WRITE_ONCE(z, 1);
> +	}
> +
> +	P2()
> +	{
> +		int r2, r3, r4;
> +
> +		r2 = READ_ONCE(z);
> +		smp_rmb();
> +		r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
> +		r4 = READ_ONCE(y);
> +	}
> +
> +If r1 = 1 and r2 = 1 at the end, then both r3 and r4 must also be 1.
> +In other words, the smp_store_release() read by the smp_load_acquire()
> +together act as a sort of inter-processor fence, forcing the stores to
> +x and y to propagate to P2 before the store to z does, regardless of
> +the fact that P2 doesn't execute any release or acquire instructions.
> +This conclusion would hold even if P0 and P1 were on the same CPU, so
> +long as r1 = 1.
> +
> +We have mentioned that the LKMM treats locks as acquires and unlocks
> +as releases.  Therefore it should not be surprising that something
> +analogous to this ordering also holds for locks:
> +
> +	int x, y;
> +	spinlock_t s;
> +
> +	P0()
> +	{
> +		spin_lock(&s);
> +		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
> +		spin_unlock(&s);
> +	}
> +
> +	P1()
> +	{
> +		int r1;
> +
> +		spin_lock(&s);
> +		r1 = READ_ONCE(x):
> +		WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
> +		spin_unlock(&s);
> +	}
> +
> +	P2()
> +	{
> +		int r2, r3;
> +
> +		r2 = READ_ONCE(y);
> +		smp_rmb();
> +		r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
> +	}
> +
> +If r1 = 1 at the end (implying that P1's critical section executes
> +after P0's) and r2 = 1, then r3 must be 1; the ordering of the
> +critical sections forces the store to x to propagate to P2 before the
> +store to y does.
> +
> +In both versions of this scenario, the store-propagation ordering is
> +not required by the operational model.  However, it does happen on all
> +the architectures supporting the Linux kernel, and kernel developers
> +seem to expect it; they have requested that this behavior be included
> +in the LKMM.
>