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:   Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:49:27 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>,
        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: <20230121234927.GI2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <0fae983b-2a7c-d44e-8881-53d5cc053f09@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230119184107.GT2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <64b48a7b-624c-26bd-be9b-0522fc490b28@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y8q+u09ynxnvjVi5@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <ea37d3d9-4ed3-872a-aed9-f34c4553f6f1@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y8wimpMpajLudrYb@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230121184032.GF2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y8xDieO/iYOk9Ty1@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230121201026.GH2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y8xTKkgaLHg3Yifk@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8xTKkgaLHg3Yifk@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 04:03:38PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > Anyway, the operational model says the litmus test can succeed as 
> > > > > follows:
> > > > > 
> > > > > P0                    P1                     P2
> > > > > --------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------
> > > > >                       Widx2=srcu_down_read()
> > > > >                       Wrel p2=1
> > > > >                       Ry=0
> > > > >                                              Wy=1
> > > > >                                              synchronize_srcu() starts
> > > > > 	... idx2, p2, and y propagate to all CPUs ...
> > > > >                                              Time t1
> > > > > Widx1=srcu_down_read()
> > > > > Wrel p1=1
> > > > > 	,,, idx1 and p1 propagate to all CPUs ...
> > > > >                       Racq p1=1
> > > > >                       srcu_up_read(idx2)
> > > > >                                              synchronize_srcu() ends
> > > > >                                              Wx=1
> > > > > Rx=1
> > > > > Racq p2=1
> > > > > Ridx2=idx1
> > > > > srcu_up_read(idx1)
> > > > > 
> > > > > (The final equality in P0 is allowed because idx1 and idx2 are both 
> > > > > random numbers, so they might be equal.)
> > > > 
> > > > This all makes sense to me.
> > > > 
> > > > > Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that the algorithm Paul described 
> > > > > will forbid this litmus test even if you remove the while loop and the 
> > > > > read of idx2 from P0.
> 
> > > Sorry, what I said may not have been clear.  I meant that even if you 
> > > remove the while loop and read of idx2 from P0, your algorithm will 
> > > still not allow idx1 = idx2 provided everything else is as written.
> > 
> > If synchronize_srcu() has flipped ->srcu_idx by the time that P0's
> > srcu_down_read() executes, agreed.  Otherwise, Widx1 and Widx2 might
> > well be equal.
> 
> But idx1 and idx2 are equal, we can't have both P0 reads x=1 and P1 
> reads y=0 -- not even if P0 doesn't wait until it reads p2=1.  If you 
> don't see why, I'll send an explanation.

Ah, synchronize_srcu() does unlocks *then* locks.  I was getting it
backwards, apologies for my confusion!

							Thanx, Paul