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:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:17:46 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tools/memory-model: Add SRCU support
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1811151101310.1308-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20181119120120.GA5092@andrea>
 <20181126223509.GM4170@linux.ibm.com>
 <20181127002642.GA4087@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181127002642.GA4087@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20181127171746.GP4170@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:26:42AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > commit 72f61917f12236514a70017d1ebafb9b8d34a9b6
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> > Date:   Mon Nov 26 14:26:43 2018 -0800
> > 
> >     tools/memory-model: Update README for addition of SRCU
> >     
> >     This commit updates the section on LKMM limitations to no longer say
> >     that SRCU is not modeled, but instead describe how LKMM's modeling of
> >     SRCU departs from the Linux-kernel implementation.
> >     
> >     TL;DR:  There is no known valid use case that cares about the Linux
> >     kernel's ability to have partially overlapping SRCU read-side critical
> >     sections.
> >     
> >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> Indeed!,
> 
> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>

Thank you, applied!

I moved this commit and Alan's three SRCU commits to the branch destined
for the upcoming merge window.

							Thanx, Paul

>   Andrea
> 
> 
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/README b/tools/memory-model/README
> > index 0f2c366518c6..9d7d4f23503f 100644
> > --- a/tools/memory-model/README
> > +++ b/tools/memory-model/README
> > @@ -221,8 +221,29 @@ The Linux-kernel memory model has the following limitations:
> >  		additional call_rcu() process to the site of the
> >  		emulated rcu-barrier().
> >  
> > -	e.	Sleepable RCU (SRCU) is not modeled.  It can be
> > -		emulated, but perhaps not simply.
> > +	e.	Although sleepable RCU (SRCU) is now modeled, there
> > +		are some subtle differences between its semantics and
> > +		those in the Linux kernel.  For example, the kernel
> > +		might interpret the following sequence as two partially
> > +		overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections:
> > +
> > +			 1  r1 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
> > +			 2  do_something_1();
> > +			 3  r2 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu);
> > +			 4  do_something_2();
> > +			 5  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r1);
> > +			 6  do_something_3();
> > +			 7  srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r2);
> > +
> > +		In contrast, LKMM will interpret this as a nested pair of
> > +		SRCU read-side critical sections, with the outer critical
> > +		section spanning lines 1-7 and the inner critical section
> > +		spanning lines 3-5.
> > +
> > +		This difference would be more of a concern had anyone
> > +		identified a reasonable use case for partially overlapping
> > +		SRCU read-side critical sections.  For more information,
> > +		please see: https://paulmck.livejournal.com/40593.html
> >  
> >  	f.	Reader-writer locking is not modeled.  It can be
> >  		emulated in litmus tests using atomic read-modify-write
> > 
>