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;
Message-ID: <fbbd5a65-7f93-ba5e-d8a6-236d9af43c47@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:51:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, will <will@kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, npiggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, joel <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <Y8gjUKoHxqR9+7Hx@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <3dabbcfb-858c-6aa0-6824-05b8cc8e9cdb@gmail.com>
 <20230118201918.GI2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <a5637181-1675-7973-489c-e5d24cbd25c2@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230118211201.GL2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <09f084d2-6128-7f83-b2a5-cbe236b1678d@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230119001147.GN2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <0fae983b-2a7c-d44e-8881-53d5cc053f09@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230119184107.GT2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y8mfWTX7V69pAwo8@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230120035521.GA319650@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <126e32b7-caa7-0a1e-4589-885aef7c5a39@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <126e32b7-caa7-0a1e-4589-885aef7c5a39@huaweicloud.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

I'm not going to get it right today, am I?

+let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rfe) * ; data 
; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc

I see now that I copied the format from your message but without 
realizing the original had a `|` where I have a `;`.
I hope this version is finally right and perhaps more natural than the 
(data | rf) version, considering rf can't actually appear in most places 
and this more closely matches carry-dep;data.
But of course feel free to use
+let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data  | [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rf)+ ; 
[Srcu-unlock]) & loc
instead if you prefer.

have fun, jonas


On 1/20/2023 1:34 PM, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> I just realized I made a mistake in my earlier response to this 
> message; you still need the rf for passing the cookie across threads.
> Perhaps it's better to just also exclude srcu_unlock type events 
> explicitly here.
>
> +let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rf) + ; 
> [Srcu-unlock]) & loc
>
>
> best wishes,
> jonas
>
> On 1/20/2023 4:55 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 02:51:53PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:41:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>> In contrast, this actually needs srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read():
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C C-srcu-nest-6
>>>>
>>>> (*
>>>>   * Result: Never
>>>>   *
>>>>   * Flag unbalanced-srcu-locking
>>>>   * This would be valid for srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read().
>>>>   *)
>>>>
>>>> {}
>>>>
>>>> P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx)
>>>> {
>>>>     int r2;
>>>>     int r3;
>>>>
>>>>     r3 = srcu_down_read(s1);
>>>>     WRITE_ONCE(*idx, r3);
>>>>     r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx)
>>>> {
>>>>     int r1;
>>>>     int r3;
>>>>
>>>>     r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
>>>>     r3 = READ_ONCE(*idx);
>>>>     srcu_up_read(s1, r3);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> P2(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1)
>>>> {
>>>>     WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
>>>>     synchronize_srcu(s1);
>>>>     WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> locations [0:r1]
>>>> exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
>>> I modified this litmus test by adding a flag variable with an
>>> smp_store_release in P0, an smp_load_acquire in P1, and a filter clause
>>> to ensure that P1 reads the flag and idx from P1.
>>>
>>> With the patch below, the results were as expected:
>>>
>>> Test C-srcu-nest-6 Allowed
>>> States 3
>>> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r1=0;
>>> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=0;
>>> 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=1;
>>> No
>>> Witnesses
>>> Positive: 0 Negative: 3
>>> Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0)
>>> Observation C-srcu-nest-6 Never 0 3
>>> Time C-srcu-nest-6 0.04
>>> Hash=2b010cf3446879fb84752a6016ff88c5
>>>
>>> It turns out that the idea of removing rf edges from Srcu-unlock events
>>> doesn't work well.  The missing edges mess up herd's calculation of the
>>> fr relation and the coherence axiom.  So I've gone back to filtering
>>> those edges out of carry-dep.
>>>
>>> Also, Boqun's suggestion for flagging ordinary accesses to SRCU
>>> structures no longer works, because the lock and unlock operations now
>>> _are_ normal accesses.  I removed that check too, but it shouldn't hurt
>>> much because I don't expect to encounter litmus tests that try to read
>>> or write srcu_structs directly.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
>>> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell
>>> @@ -53,38 +53,30 @@ let rcu-rscs = let rec
>>>       in matched
>>>     (* Validate nesting *)
>>> -flag ~empty Rcu-lock \ domain(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-locking
>>> -flag ~empty Rcu-unlock \ range(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-locking
>>> +flag ~empty Rcu-lock \ domain(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-lock
>>> +flag ~empty Rcu-unlock \ range(rcu-rscs) as unbalanced-rcu-unlock
>>>     (* Compute matching pairs of nested Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *)
>>> -let srcu-rscs = let rec
>>> -        unmatched-locks = Srcu-lock \ domain(matched)
>>> -    and unmatched-unlocks = Srcu-unlock \ range(matched)
>>> -    and unmatched = unmatched-locks | unmatched-unlocks
>>> -    and unmatched-po = ([unmatched] ; po ; [unmatched]) & loc
>>> -    and unmatched-locks-to-unlocks =
>>> -        ([unmatched-locks] ; po ; [unmatched-unlocks]) & loc
>>> -    and matched = matched | (unmatched-locks-to-unlocks \
>>> -        (unmatched-po ; unmatched-po))
>>> -    in matched
>>> +let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; (data | rf)+ ; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc
>>>     (* Validate nesting *)
>>> -flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking
>>> -flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking
>>> +flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-lock
>>> +flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-unlock
>>> +flag ~empty (srcu-rscs^-1 ; srcu-rscs) \ id as multiple-srcu-matches
>>>     (* Check for use of synchronize_srcu() inside an RCU critical 
>>> section *)
>>>   flag ~empty rcu-rscs & (po ; [Sync-srcu] ; po) as invalid-sleep
>>>     (* Validate SRCU dynamic match *)
>>> -flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as srcu-bad-nesting
>>> +flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as bad-srcu-value-match
>>>     (* Compute marked and plain memory accesses *)
>>>   let Marked = (~M) | IW | Once | Release | Acquire | domain(rmw) | 
>>> range(rmw) |
>>> -        LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU
>>> +         LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU | Srcu-lock | Srcu-unlock
>>>   let Plain = M \ Marked
>>>     (* Redefine dependencies to include those carried through plain 
>>> accesses *)
>>> -let carry-dep = (data ; rfi)*
>>> +let carry-dep = (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rfi)*
>>>   let addr = carry-dep ; addr
>>>   let ctrl = carry-dep ; ctrl
>>>   let data = carry-dep ; data
>>> Index: usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
>>> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def
>>> @@ -49,8 +49,10 @@ synchronize_rcu() { __fence{sync-rcu}; }
>>>   synchronize_rcu_expedited() { __fence{sync-rcu}; }
>>>     // SRCU
>>> -srcu_read_lock(X)  __srcu{srcu-lock}(X)
>>> -srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __srcu{srcu-unlock}(X,Y); }
>>> +srcu_read_lock(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X)
>>> +srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); }
>>> +srcu_down_read(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X)
>>> +srcu_up_read(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); }
>>>   synchronize_srcu(X)  { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }
>>>   synchronize_srcu_expedited(X)  { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); }
>> And for some initial tests:
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-1.litmus 
>>
>>
>>     "Flag multiple-srcu-matches" but otherwise OK.
>>     As a "hail Mary" exercise, I used r4 for the second SRCU
>>     read-side critical section, but this had no effect.
>>     (This flag is expected and seen for #4 below.)
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-2.litmus 
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-3.litmus 
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-4.litmus 
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-5.litmus 
>>
>>
>>     All as expected.
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-6.litmus 
>>
>>
>>     Get "Flag unbalanced-srcu-lock" and "Flag unbalanced-srcu-unlock",
>>     but this is srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read(), where this should
>>     be OK.    Ah, but I need to do the release/acquire/filter trick.  
>> Once
>>     I did that, it works as expected.
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-7.litmus 
>>
>> https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-srcu-nest-8.litmus 
>>
>>
>>     Both as expected.
>>
>> Getting there!!!
>>
>> I also started a regression test, hopefully without pilot error.  :-/
>>
>>                             Thanx, Paul
>