Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp2061403yba; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzDUC1dNedLH/ftbpUGCNAQs1iveIkutuGC+iWrbcf6emEQoc7sxQ1qjuGW9IpWOJg9m6dX X-Received: by 2002:a62:2587:: with SMTP id l129mr5364329pfl.151.1555698024626; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1555698024; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=G4+8rVQk3Dy7880ZBBN/CW78XaISM/1YafHxRU3hrCpRrGMjH2s9zjcCl9nevTLAH+ QuCGhZkZDDinSFfHH42o7PI0ZrGD1jjLgx9PCJSTQozRq3vnZ1zHb921sYZR60Qzsiyz YDWYWur0BJsvbm8bjQEc98DJlYwj5tbWdTVeaCSRgss9x/DfXHuS2zLtMSxCWP+sZCvc Jj0F052P3jY8IkX6/bUSyp6TleWriqcy6zEUAFfkxsS2nz9z1RpUQmkKTlz/s1Xy2+50 LI2GEPL16EIzd7tZ3HBz5LN/fs0fP960NfgRPbxThdU9F864YrCWIytDtFTwMMozFbLG O1Cw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:date; bh=09on5wTr1HBm84EeqY/FLMwjnn/F6/xyfz9u4fKJh+M=; b=C2K6rAjup6cc9bX4DZHK2327wqDwz/Y3LIhrZrWw1UGdFm4ZjKpScZYb9RdVI2er6x SovBUVLAf+IK/AkYOVP6Utw6PHZRDQrAKnh78y8Mz4kXlMUbrrJDQ5Xp/Dq5GXR538NY WegTPCliHuaM0wgOVbJDbVAM7QXs85O+apsNCOcrSTjcSwowTSkguqltn1pPT3HKsMos CAtMWQaafsksEAqsHLlaDuDUaSmKK/bKseQwNOadZBvW4FEae6B4LH3FYqDRuWcBmAr5 W8KiwQMiUA5TbgtGFP7zjrtBeL86Wzk5zMQf0uh7dznErc5vhyX/wzUcePPER1cWvBtE LQhQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y11si6176733plg.39.2019.04.19.11.20.09; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727432AbfDSSSC (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:18:02 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:59712 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726251AbfDSSSB (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:18:01 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3JH9T7U052370 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:17:22 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ryf987mc2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:17:22 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:17:21 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.25) by e16.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.203) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:17:15 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x3JHHFPL37814294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:17:15 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F8FB2064; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:17:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9311B205F; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:17:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.188]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:17:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7303016C0A09; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:17:16 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Alan Stern Cc: Andrea Parri , LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa , Boqun Feng , Daniel Lustig , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Nicholas Piggin , Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon , Daniel Kroening , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190419124720.GU14111@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19041917-0072-0000-0000-0000041C47FD X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010957; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000285; SDB=6.01191409; UDB=6.00624397; IPR=6.00972210; MB=3.00026517; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-04-19 17:17:19 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19041917-0073-0000-0000-00004BE3158D Message-Id: <20190419171716.GY14111@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-19_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904190123 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:34:06AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 02:53:02AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > Are you saying that on x86, atomic_inc() acts as a full memory barrier > > > > but not as a compiler barrier, and vice versa for > > > > smp_mb__after_atomic()? Or that neither atomic_inc() nor > > > > smp_mb__after_atomic() implements a full memory barrier? > > > > > > I'd say the former; AFAICT, these boil down to: > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.1-rc5/source/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h#L95 > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.1-rc5/source/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h#L84 > > > > OK, how about the following? > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > commit 19d166dadc4e1bba4b248fb46d32ca4f2d10896b > > Author: Paul E. McKenney > > Date: Fri Apr 19 05:20:30 2019 -0700 > > > > tools/memory-model: Make smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() match x86 > > > > Read-modify-write atomic operations that do not return values need not > > provide any ordering guarantees, and this means that both the compiler > > and the CPU are free to reorder accesses across things like atomic_inc() > > and atomic_dec(). The stronger systems such as x86 allow the compiler > > to do the reordering, but prevent the CPU from so doing, and these > > systems implement smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() as compiler barriers. > > The weaker systems such as Power allow both the compiler and the CPU > > to reorder accesses across things like atomic_inc() and atomic_dec(), > > and implement smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() as full memory barriers. > > > > This means that smp_mb__before_atomic() only orders the atomic operation > > itself with accesses preceding the smp_mb__before_atomic(), and does > > not necessarily provide any ordering whatsoever against accesses > > folowing the atomic operation. Similarly, smp_mb__after_atomic() > > only orders the atomic operation itself with accesses following the > > smp_mb__after_atomic(), and does not necessarily provide any ordering > > whatsoever against accesses preceding the atomic operation. Full ordering > > therefore requires both an smp_mb__before_atomic() before the atomic > > operation and an smp_mb__after_atomic() after the atomic operation. > > > > Therefore, linux-kernel.cat's current model of Before-atomic > > and After-atomic is too strong, as it guarantees ordering of > > accesses on the other side of the atomic operation from the > > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic(). This commit therefore weakens > > the guarantee to match the semantics called out above. > > > > Reported-by: Andrea Parri > > Suggested-by: Alan Stern > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > index 169d938c0b53..e5b97c3e8e39 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > > @@ -1888,7 +1888,37 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions: > > atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count); > > > > This makes sure that the death mark on the object is perceived to be set > > - *before* the reference counter is decremented. > > + *before* the reference counter is decremented. However, please note > > + that smp_mb__before_atomic()'s ordering guarantee does not necessarily > > + extend beyond the atomic operation. For example: > > + > > + obj->dead = 1; > > + smp_mb__before_atomic(); > > + atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count); > > + r1 = a; > > + > > + Here the store to obj->dead is not guaranteed to be ordered with > > + with the load from a. This reordering can happen on x86 as follows: > > + (1) The compiler can reorder the load from a to precede the > > + atomic_dec(), (2) Because x86 smp_mb__before_atomic() is only a > > + compiler barrier, the CPU can reorder the preceding store to > > + obj->dead with the later load from a. > > + > > + This could be avoided by using READ_ONCE(), which would prevent the > > + compiler from reordering due to both atomic_dec() and READ_ONCE() > > + being volatile accesses, and is usually preferable for loads from > > + shared variables. However, weakly ordered CPUs would still be > > + free to reorder the atomic_dec() with the load from a, so a more > > + readable option is to also use smp_mb__after_atomic() as follows: > > + > > + WRITE_ONCE(obj->dead, 1); > > + smp_mb__before_atomic(); > > + atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count); > > + smp_mb__after_atomic(); > > + r1 = READ_ONCE(a); > > + > > + This orders all three accesses against each other, and also makes > > + the intent quite clear. > > > > See Documentation/atomic_{t,bitops}.txt for more information. > > > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat > > index 8dcb37835b61..b6866f93abb8 100644 > > --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat > > @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ include "lock.cat" > > let rmb = [R \ Noreturn] ; fencerel(Rmb) ; [R \ Noreturn] > > let wmb = [W] ; fencerel(Wmb) ; [W] > > let mb = ([M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M]) | > > - ([M] ; fencerel(Before-atomic) ; [RMW] ; po? ; [M]) | > > - ([M] ; po? ; [RMW] ; fencerel(After-atomic) ; [M]) | > > + ([M] ; fencerel(Before-atomic) ; [RMW]) | > > + ([RMW] ; fencerel(After-atomic) ; [M]) | > > ([M] ; po? ; [LKW] ; fencerel(After-spinlock) ; [M]) | > > ([M] ; po ; [UL] ; (co | po) ; [LKW] ; > > fencerel(After-unlock-lock) ; [M]) > > Something like the following should also be applied, either as part of > the same patch or immediately after. Please do send a patch! Thanx, Paul > Alan > > > Index: usb-devel/Documentation/atomic_t.txt > =================================================================== > --- usb-devel.orig/Documentation/atomic_t.txt > +++ usb-devel/Documentation/atomic_t.txt > @@ -171,7 +171,10 @@ The barriers: > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() > > only apply to the RMW ops and can be used to augment/upgrade the ordering > -inherent to the used atomic op. These barriers provide a full smp_mb(). > +inherent to the used atomic op. Unlike normal smp_mb() barriers, they order > +only the RMW op itself against the instructions preceding the > +smp_mb__before_atomic() or following the smp_mb__after_atomic(); they do > +not order instructions on the other side of the RMW op at all. > > These helper barriers exist because architectures have varying implicit > ordering on their SMP atomic primitives. For example our TSO architectures > @@ -195,7 +198,8 @@ Further, while something like: > atomic_dec(&X); > > is a 'typical' RELEASE pattern, the barrier is strictly stronger than > -a RELEASE. Similarly for something like: > +a RELEASE because it orders preceding instructions against both the read > +and write parts of the atomic_dec(). Similarly, something like: > > atomic_inc(&X); > smp_mb__after_atomic(); > @@ -227,7 +231,8 @@ strictly stronger than ACQUIRE. As illus > > This should not happen; but a hypothetical atomic_inc_acquire() -- > (void)atomic_fetch_inc_acquire() for instance -- would allow the outcome, > -since then: > +because it would not order the W part of the RMW against the following > +WRITE_ONCE. Thus: > > P1 P2 > >