Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 05:25:51 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc:     stern@rowland.harvard.edu, will@kernel.org, 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, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak
 Memory Models"
Message-ID: <20220829122551.GL6159@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20220826124812.GA3007435@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <YwwlWMmHxD7OPERD@anparri>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <YwwlWMmHxD7OPERD@anparri>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 04:33:23AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 05:48:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > I have not yet done more than glance at this one, but figured I should
> > send it along sooner rather than later.
> > 
> > "Verifying and Optimizing Compact NUMA-Aware Locks on Weak
> > Memory Models", Antonio Paolillo, Hern?n Ponce-de-Le?n, Thomas
> > Haas, Diogo Behrens, Rafael Chehab, Ming Fu, and Roland Meyer.
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15240
> > 
> > The claim is that the queued spinlocks implementation with CNA violates
> > LKMM but actually works on all architectures having a formal hardware
> > memory model.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Section 4 ends with a discussion about certain "spurious" data races.
> Do we have litmus tests with them?  (I could repro with Dartagnan...)

Their Figure 5 clearly shows a data race, but agreed, their claim is
that this race is prevented by other code not in this litmus test.
Me, I currently suspect that the spurious data race might be due to the
failure to guarantee mutual exclusion, though I have not yet read that
paper carefully.  That is scheduled for tomorrow morning.

							Thanx, Paul