Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:54:56 -0500
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
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: <Y9CL8LBz+/mbbD00@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <Y8+8fH52iqQABYs2@andrea>
 <20230124145423.GI2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <8cc799ab-ffa1-47f7-6e1d-97488a210f14@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230124162253.GL2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <3e5020c2-0dd3-68a6-9b98-5a7f57ed7733@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230124172647.GN2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <2788294a-972e-acbc-84ce-25d2bb4d26d6@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230124221524.GV2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y9BdNVk2LQiUYABS@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230124225449.GY2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230124225449.GY2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:54:49PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 05:35:33PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Can you be more explicit?  Exactly what guarantees does the kernel 
> > implementation make that can't be expressed in LKMM?
> 
> I doubt that I will be able to articulate it very well, but here goes.
> 
> Within the Linux kernel, the rule for a given RCU "domain" is that if
> an event follows a grace period in pretty much any sense of the word,
> then that event sees the effects of all events in all read-side critical
> sections that began prior to the start of that grace period.
> 
> Here the senses of the word "follow" include combinations of rf, fr,
> and co, combined with the various acyclic and irreflexive relations
> defined in LKMM.

The LKMM says pretty much the same thing.  In fact, it says the event 
sees the effects of all events po-before the unlock of (not just inside) 
any read-side critical section that began prior to the start of the 
grace period.

> > And are these anything the memory model needs to worry about?
> 
> Given that several people, yourself included, are starting to use LKMM
> to analyze the Linux-kernel RCU implementations, maybe it does.
> 
> Me, I am happy either way.

Judging from your description, I don't think we have anything to worry 
about.

Alan