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:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:28:38 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
 remove it for ordinary release/acquire
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180712134821.GT2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1807121236470.1306-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1807121236470.1306-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180712172838.GU3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:04:27PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > But again, these are stuble patterns, and my guess is that several/
> > > most kernel developers really won't care about such guarantees (and
> > > if some will do, they'll have the tools to figure out what they can
> > > actually rely on ...)
> > 
> > Yes it is subtle, yes most people won't care, however the problem is
> > that it is subtly the wrong way around. People expect causality, this is
> > a human failing perhaps, but that's how it is.
> > 
> > And I strongly feel we should have our locks be such that they don't
> > subtly break things.
> > 
> > Take for instance the pattern where RCU relies on RCsc locks, this is an
> > entirely simple and straight forward use of locks, yet completely fails
> > on this subtle point.
> 
> Do you happen to remember exactly where in the kernel source this 
> occurs?

Look for the uses of raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node() and friends in
kernel/rcu and include/linux/*rcu*, along with the explanation in
Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.html

I must confess that I am not following exactly what Peter is calling
out as the failure.  My best guess is that he is leading up to his
call for RCsc locks, but I might have missed a turn.

But Peter did supply raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node(), which is a marked
improvement over the earlier open-coding of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
after each and every acquisition of the rcu_node structure's ->lock,
so overall I cannot complain.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul