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, 14 Dec 2018 16:39:34 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
cc:     David Goldblatt <davidtgoldblatt@gmail.com>,
        <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, <triegel@redhat.com>,
        <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        <will.deacon@arm.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
        <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, <npiggin@gmail.com>, <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>, <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        <dlustig@nvidia.com>, <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux: Implement membarrier function
In-Reply-To: <20181214184344.GW4170@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1812141404450.1570-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> I would say that sys_membarrier() has zero-sized read-side critical
> sections, either comprising a single instruction (as is the case for
> synchronize_sched(), actually), preempt-disable regions of code
> (which are irrelevant to userspace execution), or the spaces between
> consecutive pairs of instructions (as is the case for the newer
> IPI-based implementation).
> 
> The model picks the single-instruction option, and I haven't yet found
> a problem with this -- which is no surprise given that, as you say,
> an actual implementation makes this same choice.

I believe that for RCU tests the LKMM gives the same results for
length-zero critical sections interspersed between all the instructions
and length-one critical sections surrounding all instructions (except
synchronize_rcu).  But the proof is tricky and I haven't checked it
carefully.

> > > The other thing that took some time to get used to is the possibility
> > > of long delays during sys_membarrier() execution, allowing significant
> > > execution and reordering between different CPUs' IPIs.  This was key
> > > to my understanding of the six-process example, and probably needs to
> > > be clearly called out, including in an example or two.
> > 
> > In all the examples I'm aware of, no more than one of the IPIs
> > generated by each sys_membarrier call really matters.  (Of course,
> > there's no way to know in advance which one it will be, so you have to
> > send an IPI to every CPU.)  The execution delays and reordering
> > between different CPUs' IPIs don't appear to be significant.
> 
> Well, there are litmus tests that are allowed in which the allowed
> execution is more easily explained in terms of delays between different
> CPUs' IPIs, so it seems worth keeping track of.
> 
> There might be a litmus test that can tell the difference between
> simultaneous and non-simultaneous IPIs, but I cannot immediately think of
> one that matters.  Might be a failure of imagination on my part, though.

	P0	P1	P2
	Wc=1	[mb01]	Rb=1
	memb	Wa=1	Rc=0
	Ra=0	Wb=1	[mb02]

The IPIs have to appear in the positions shown, which means they cannot
be simultaneous.  The test is allowed because P2's reads can be
reordered.

Alan