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:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:37:27 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        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>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)
Message-ID: <20230120213727.GX2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <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>
 <20230119215304.GA2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <c5902c18-e0cc-125e-c2f5-7971f0a7ce07@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230120153909.GF2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <cc3686b3-b234-b0ee-4d2d-15f54da4331b@huaweicloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <cc3686b3-b234-b0ee-4d2d-15f54da4331b@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:46:55PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/20/2023 4:39 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:43:10AM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think Boqun's patch is hard to repair.
> > > Besides the issue you mention, I think it's also missing Sync-srcu, which
> > > seems to be linked by loc based on its first argument.
> > > 
> > > How about something like this?
> > > 
> > > let ALL-LOCKS = LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RU | Srcu-lock | Srcu-unlock |
> > > Sync-srcu   flag ~empty ~[ALL_LOCKS | IW] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as
> > > mixed-lock-accesses
> > > 
> > > If you're using something that isn't a lock or intial write on the same location as a lock, you get the flag.
> > Wouldn't that unconditionally complain about the first srcu_read_lock()
> > in a given process?  Or am I misreading those statements?
> > 							
> 
> I unfolded the definition step by step and it seems I was careless when
> distributing the ~ over the [] operator.
> I should have written:
> 
> flag ~empty [~(ALL_LOCKS | IW)] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as mixed-lock-accesses
> 
> but somehow I thought I can save the parentheses by putting the ~ on the
> outside.
> Now on the off-chance that this is kind of how you already read the
> relation, let me unfold it step-by-step.
> 
> Let's assume that the sequence s of operations on this location is
> ? s = initial write , (perhaps some gps) , first read lock , read
> lock&unlock&gp ...
> then the flag would appear if the specified relation isn't empty. That would
> be the case if there are a and b that are linked by
> 
>   a ->[~(ALL_LOCKS | IW)] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] b
> 
> This means a is neither in ALL_LOCKS nor in IW, while b is ALL-LOCKS; and furthermore, they are equal to a' and b' resp. that are related by loc, i.e., appear in this sequence s. Thus both a and b are actually appearing both in the sequence s.
> However, every event in the sequence s is either in ALL_LOCKS or in IW, which contradicts the assumption that a is in the sequence and in neither of the sets. Because of this contradiction, the flag doesn't appear if the sequence looks like this.
> 
> More generally, if every event in the sequence is either the initial write or one of (srcu-) lock,unlock,up,down,sync, there won't be a flag.
> 
> In contrast, if the sequence has the form
>  s' = initial write, (normal srcu events), some other acces x, (normal srcu events)
> and y is one of the srcu events in this sequence, then
>  x ->[~(ALL_LOCKS | IW)] ; loc ; [ALL_LOCKS] y
> and you get a flag.

Thank you!  When I get done messing with NMIs, I will give this a go.

Just out of curiosity, are you sent up to run LKMM locally at your end?

							Thanx, Paul