Feedback-ID: iad51458e:Fastmail
Date:   Sat, 25 Feb 2023 19:09:05 -0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>,
        parri.andrea@gmail.com, will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com, dlustig@nvidia.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, urezki@gmail.com, quic_neeraju@quicinc.com,
        frederic@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po
Message-ID: <Y/rNUfW509AQYCYn@boqun-archlinux>
References: <20230224135251.24989-1-jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y/jYm0AZfPHkIalK@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20230224183758.GQ2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <20230226010110.GA1576556@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y/rEH2r9i0BtfxEW@rowland.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y/rEH2r9i0BtfxEW@rowland.harvard.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 09:29:51PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 05:01:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > A few other oddities:
> > 
> > litmus/auto/C-LB-Lww+R-OC.litmus
> > 
> > 	Both versions flag a data race, which I am not seeing.	It appears
> > 	to me that P1's store to u0 cannot happen unless P0's store
> > 	has completed.  So what am I missing here?
> 
> The LKMM doesn't believe that a control or data dependency orders a 
> plain write after a marked read.  Hence in this test it thinks that P1's 
> store to u0 can happen before the load of x1.  I don't remember why we 
> did it this way -- probably we just wanted to minimize the restrictions 
> on when plain accesses can execute.  (I do remember the reason for 
> making address dependencies induce order; it was so RCU would work.)
> 

Because plain store can be optimzed as an "store only if not equal"?
As the following sentenses in the explanations.txt:

	The need to distinguish between r- and w-bounding raises yet another
	issue.  When the source code contains a plain store, the compiler is
	allowed to put plain loads of the same location into the object code.
	For example, given the source code:

		x = 1;

	the compiler is theoretically allowed to generate object code that
	looks like:

		if (x != 1)
			x = 1;

	thereby adding a load (and possibly replacing the store entirely).
	For this reason, whenever the LKMM requires a plain store to be
	w-pre-bounded or w-post-bounded by a marked access, it also requires
	the store to be r-pre-bounded or r-post-bounded, so as to handle cases
	where the compiler adds a load.

Regards,
Boqun

> The patch below will change what the LKMM believes.  It eliminates the 
> positive outcome of the litmus test and the data race.  Should it be 
> adopted into the memory model?
> 
> > litmus/auto/C-LB-Lrw+R-OC.litmus
> > litmus/auto/C-LB-Lww+R-Oc.litmus
> > litmus/auto/C-LB-Lrw+R-Oc.litmus
> > litmus/auto/C-LB-Lrw+R-A+R-Oc.litmus
> > litmus/auto/C-LB-Lww+R-A+R-OC.litmus
> > 
> > 	Ditto.  (There are likely more.)
> 
> I haven't looked at these but they're probably similar.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> --- usb-devel.orig/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> +++ usb-devel/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat
> @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ let vis = cumul-fence* ; rfe? ; [Marked]
>  	((strong-fence ; [Marked] ; xbstar) | (xbstar & int))
>  
>  (* Boundaries for lifetimes of plain accesses *)
> -let w-pre-bounded = [Marked] ; (addr | fence)?
> +let w-pre-bounded = [Marked] ; (rwdep | fence)?
>  let r-pre-bounded = [Marked] ; (addr | nonrw-fence |
>  	([R4rmb] ; fencerel(Rmb) ; [~Noreturn]))?
>  let w-post-bounded = fence? ; [Marked] ; rmw-sequence