mirror of
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
synced 2024-12-29 17:25:38 +00:00
master
27 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Jonas Oberhauser
|
762e9357e7 |
tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po
As stated in the documentation and implied by its name, the ppo
(preserved program order) relation is intended to link po-earlier
to po-later instructions under certain conditions. However, a
corner case currently allows instructions to be linked by ppo that
are not executed by the same thread, i.e., instructions are being
linked that have no po relation.
This happens due to the mb/strong-fence/fence relations, which (as
one case) provide order when locks are passed between threads
followed by an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() fence. This is
illustrated in the following litmus test (as can be seen when using
herd7 with `doshow ppo`):
P0(spinlock_t *x, spinlock_t *y)
{
spin_lock(x);
spin_unlock(x);
}
P1(spinlock_t *x, spinlock_t *y)
{
spin_lock(x);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
*y = 1;
}
The ppo relation will link P0's spin_lock(x) and P1's *y=1, because
P0 passes a lock to P1 which then uses this fence.
The patch makes ppo a subrelation of po by letting fence contribute
to ppo only in case the fence links events of the same thread.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
||
|
Joel Fernandes (Google)
|
aa568c26ca |
tools/memory-model: Restrict to-r to read-read address dependency
During a code-reading exercise of linux-kernel.cat CAT file, I generated a graph to show the to-r relations. While likely not problematic for the model, I found it confusing that a read-write address dependency would show as a to-r edge on the graph. This patch therefore restricts the to-r links derived from addr to only read-read address dependencies, so that read-write address dependencies don't show as to-r in the graphs. This should also prevent future users of to-r from deriving incorrect relations. Note that a read-write address dep, obviously, still ends up in the ppo relation via the to-w relation. I verified that a read-read address dependency still shows up as a to-r link in the graph, as it did before. For reference, the problematic graph was generated with the following command: herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg \ -doshow dep -doshow to-r -doshow to-w ./foo.litmus -show all -o OUT/ Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> |
||
|
Paul E. McKenney
|
02bae7a242 |
tools/memory-model: Add smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock()
This commit adds support for smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock(), which, when combined with a prior srcu_read_unlock(), implies a full memory barrier. No ordering is guaranteed to accesses between the two, and placing accesses between is bad practice in any case. Tests may be found at https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus in files matching manual/kernel/C-srcu-mb-*.litmus. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> |
||
|
Jonas Oberhauser
|
dd409de256 |
tools/memory-model: Unify UNLOCK+LOCK pairings to po-unlock-lock-po
LKMM uses two relations for talking about UNLOCK+LOCK pairings:
1) po-unlock-lock-po, which handles UNLOCK+LOCK pairings
on the same CPU or immediate lock handovers on the same
lock variable
2) po;[UL];(co|po);[LKW];po, which handles UNLOCK+LOCK pairs
literally as described in rcupdate.h#L1002, i.e., even
after a sequence of handovers on the same lock variable.
The latter relation is used only once, to provide the guarantee
defined in rcupdate.h#L1002 by smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which
makes any UNLOCK+LOCK pair followed by the fence behave like a full
barrier.
This patch drops this use in favor of using po-unlock-lock-po
everywhere, which unifies the way the model talks about UNLOCK+LOCK
pairings. At first glance this seems to weaken the guarantee given
by LKMM: When considering a long sequence of lock handovers
such as below, where P0 hands the lock to P1, which hands it to P2,
which finally executes such an after_unlock_lock fence, the mb
relation currently links any stores in the critical section of P0
to instructions P2 executes after its fence, but not so after the
patch.
P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock)
{
spin_lock(mylock);
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
spin_unlock(mylock);
WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
}
P1(int *y, int *z, spinlock_t *mylock)
{
int r0 = READ_ONCE(*y); // reads 1
spin_lock(mylock);
spin_unlock(mylock);
WRITE_ONCE(*z,1);
}
P2(int *z, int *d, spinlock_t *mylock)
{
int r1 = READ_ONCE(*z); // reads 1
spin_lock(mylock);
spin_unlock(mylock);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
WRITE_ONCE(*d,1);
}
P3(int *x, int *d)
{
WRITE_ONCE(*d,2);
smp_mb();
WRITE_ONCE(*x,1);
}
exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r1=1 /\ x=2 /\ d=2)
Nevertheless, the ordering guarantee given in rcupdate.h is actually
not weakened. This is because the unlock operations along the
sequence of handovers are A-cumulative fences. They ensure that any
stores that propagate to the CPU performing the first unlock
operation in the sequence must also propagate to every CPU that
performs a subsequent lock operation in the sequence. Therefore any
such stores will also be ordered correctly by the fence even if only
the final handover is considered a full barrier.
Indeed this patch does not affect the behaviors allowed by LKMM at
all. The mb relation is used to define ordering through:
1) mb/.../ppo/hb, where the ordering is subsumed by hb+ where the
lock-release, rfe, and unlock-acquire orderings each provide hb
2) mb/strong-fence/cumul-fence/prop, where the rfe and A-cumulative
lock-release orderings simply add more fine-grained cumul-fence
edges to substitute a single strong-fence edge provided by a long
lock handover sequence
3) mb/strong-fence/pb and various similar uses in the definition of
data races, where as discussed above any long handover sequence
can be turned into a sequence of cumul-fence edges that provide
the same ordering.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
||
|
Alan Stern
|
ebd50e2947 |
tools: memory-model: Add rmw-sequences to the LKMM
Viktor (as relayed by Jonas) has pointed out a weakness in the Linux
Kernel Memory Model. Namely, the memory ordering properties of atomic
operations are not monotonic: An atomic op with full-barrier semantics
does not always provide ordering as strong as one with release-barrier
semantics.
The following litmus test illustrates the problem:
--------------------------------------------------
C atomics-not-monotonic
{}
P0(int *x, atomic_t *y)
{
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
smp_wmb();
atomic_set(y, 1);
}
P1(atomic_t *y)
{
int r1;
r1 = atomic_inc_return(y);
}
P2(int *x, atomic_t *y)
{
int r2;
int r3;
r2 = atomic_read(y);
smp_rmb();
r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}
exists (2:r2=2 /\ 2:r3=0)
--------------------------------------------------
The litmus test is allowed as shown with atomic_inc_return(), which
has full-barrier semantics. But if the operation is changed to
atomic_inc_return_release(), which only has release-barrier semantics,
the litmus test is forbidden. Clearly this violates monotonicity.
The reason is because the LKMM treats full-barrier atomic ops as if
they were written:
mb();
load();
store();
mb();
(where the load() and store() are the two parts of an atomic RMW op),
whereas it treats release-barrier atomic ops as if they were written:
load();
release_barrier();
store();
The difference is that here the release barrier orders the load part
of the atomic op before the store part with A-cumulativity, whereas
the mb()'s above do not. This means that release-barrier atomics can
effectively extend the cumul-fence relation but full-barrier atomics
cannot.
To resolve this problem we introduce the rmw-sequence relation,
representing an arbitrarily long sequence of atomic RMW operations in
which each operation reads from the previous one, and explicitly allow
it to extend cumul-fence. This modification of the memory model is
sound; it holds for PPC because of B-cumulativity, it holds for TSO
and ARM64 because of other-multicopy atomicity, and we can assume that
atomic ops on all other architectures will be implemented so as to
make it hold for them.
For similar reasons we also allow rmw-sequence to extend the
w-post-bounded relation, which is analogous to cumul-fence in some
ways.
Reported-by: Viktor Vafeiadis <viktor@mpi-sws.org>
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
||
|
Boqun Feng
|
ddfe12944e |
tools/memory-model: Provide extra ordering for unlock+lock pair on the same CPU
A recent discussion[1] shows that we are in favor of strengthening the ordering of unlock + lock on the same CPU: a unlock and a po-after lock should provide the so-called RCtso ordering, that is a memory access S po-before the unlock should be ordered against a memory access R po-after the lock, unless S is a store and R is a load. The strengthening meets programmers' expection that "sequence of two locked regions to be ordered wrt each other" (from Linus), and can reduce the mental burden when using locks. Therefore add it in LKMM. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210909185937.GA12379@rowland.harvard.edu/ Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc) Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com> (RISC-V) Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
daebf24a8e |
tools/memory-model: Fix data race detection for unordered store and load
Currently the Linux Kernel Memory Model gives an incorrect response
for the following litmus test:
C plain-WWC
{}
P0(int *x)
{
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
}
P1(int *x, int *y)
{
int r1;
int r2;
int r3;
r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
if (r1 == 2) {
smp_rmb();
r2 = *x;
}
smp_rmb();
r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
WRITE_ONCE(*y, r3 - 1);
}
P2(int *x, int *y)
{
int r4;
r4 = READ_ONCE(*y);
if (r4 > 0)
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
}
exists (x=2 /\ 1:r2=2 /\ 2:r4=1)
The memory model says that the plain read of *x in P1 races with the
WRITE_ONCE(*x) in P2.
The problem is that we have a write W and a read R related by neither
fre or rfe, but rather W ->coe W' ->rfe R, where W' is an intermediate
write (the WRITE_ONCE() in P0). In this situation there is no
particular ordering between W and R, so either a wr-vis link from W to
R or an rw-xbstar link from R to W would prove that the accesses
aren't concurrent.
But the LKMM only looks for a wr-vis link, which is equivalent to
assuming that W must execute before R. This is not necessarily true
on non-multicopy-atomic systems, as the WWC pattern demonstrates.
This patch changes the LKMM to accept either a wr-vis or a reverse
rw-xbstar link as a proof of non-concurrency.
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
||
|
Alan Stern
|
4289ee7d5a |
tools/memory-model: Improve data-race detection
Herbert Xu recently reported a problem concerning RCU and compiler barriers. In the course of discussing the problem, he put forth a litmus test which illustrated a serious defect in the Linux Kernel Memory Model's data-race-detection code [1]. The defect was that the LKMM assumed visibility and executes-before ordering of plain accesses had to be mediated by marked accesses. In Herbert's litmus test this wasn't so, and the LKMM claimed the litmus test was allowed and contained a data race although neither is true. In fact, plain accesses can be ordered by fences even in the absence of marked accesses. In most cases this doesn't matter, because most fences only order accesses within a single thread. But the rcu-fence relation is different; it can order (and induce visibility between) accesses in different threads -- events which otherwise might be concurrent. This makes it relevant to data-race detection. This patch makes two changes to the memory model to incorporate the new insight: If a store is separated by a fence from another access, the store is necessarily visible to the other access (as reflected in the ww-vis and wr-vis relations). Similarly, if a load is separated by a fence from another access then the load necessarily executes before the other access (as reflected in the rw-xbstar relation). If a store is separated by a strong fence from a marked access then it is necessarily visible to any access that executes after the marked access (as reflected in the ww-vis and wr-vis relations). With these changes, the LKMM gives the desired result for Herbert's litmus test and other related ones [2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1906041026570.1731-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org/ [2] https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-1.litmus https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-2.litmus https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-3.litmus https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/C-S-rcunoderef-4.litmus https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/plain/strong-vis.litmus Reported-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> Tested-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
15aa25cbf0 |
tools/memory-model: Change definition of rcu-fence
The rcu-fence relation in the Linux Kernel Memory Model is not well named. It doesn't act like any other fence relation, in that it does not relate events before a fence to events after that fence. All it does is relate certain RCU events to one another (those that are ordered by the RCU Guarantee); this induces an actual strong-fence-like relation linking events preceding the first RCU event to those following the second. This patch renames rcu-fence, now called rcu-order. It adds a new definition of rcu-fence, something which should have been present all along because it is used in the rb relation. And it modifies the fence and strong-fence relations by making them incorporate the new rcu-fence. As a result of this change, there is no longer any need to define full-fence in the section for detecting data races. It can simply be replaced by the updated strong-fence relation. This change should have no effect on the operation of the memory model. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
f9de417121 |
tools/memory-model: Expand definition of barrier
Commit
|
||
|
Alan Stern
|
0031e38adf |
tools/memory-model: Add data-race detection
This patch adds data-race detection to the Linux-Kernel Memory Model. As part of this effort, support is added for: compiler barriers (the barrier() function), and a new Preserved Program Order term: (addr ; [Plain] ; wmb) Data races are marked with a special Flag warning in herd. It is not guaranteed that the model will provide accurate predictions when a data race is present. The patch does not include documentation for the data-race detection facility. The basic design has been explained in various emails, and a separate documentation patch will be submitted later. This work is based on an earlier formulation of data races for the LKMM by Andrea Parri. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reviewed-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
d1a84ab190 |
tools/memory-model: Add definitions of plain and marked accesses
This patch adds definitions for marked and plain accesses to the Linux-Kernel Memory Model. It also modifies the definitions of the existing parts of the model (including the cumul-fence, prop, hb, pb, and rb relations) so as to make them apply only to marked accesses. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reviewed-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
4494dd58fb |
tools/memory-model: Prepare for data-race detection
This patch makes some slight alterations to linux-kernel.cat in preparation for adding support for data-race detection to the Linux-Kernel Memory Model. The definitions of relations involved in Acquire, Release, and unlock-lock ordering are moved up earlier in the source file. The rmb relation is factored through the new R4rmb class: the class of reads to which rmb will apply. The definition of the fence relation is moved earlier, and it is split up into read- and write-fences (rmb and wmb) and all the others. This should not make any functional changes. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reviewed-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> |
||
|
Andrea Parri
|
034fb712a6 |
tools/memory-model: Avoid duplicating herdtools versions
Currently, herdtools version information appears no fewer than three times in the LKMM source, which is difficult to maintain. This commit therefore places the required version in one place, namely the tools/memory-model/README file. Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> |
||
|
Luc Maranget
|
9393998e9e |
tools/memory-model: Dynamically check SRCU lock-to-unlock matching
This commit checks that the return value of srcu_read_lock() is passed
to the matching srcu_read_unlock(), where "matching" is determined by
nesting. This check operates as follows:
1. srcu_read_lock() creates an integer token, which is stored into
the generated events.
2. srcu_read_unlock() records its second (token) argument into the
generated event.
3. A new herd primitive 'different-values' filters out pairs of events
with identical values from the relation passed as its argument.
4. The bell file applies the above primitive to the (srcu)
read-side-critical-section relation 'srcu-rscs' and flags non-empty
results.
BEWARE: Works only with herd version 7.51+6 and onwards.
Signed-off-by: Luc Maranget <Luc.Maranget@inria.fr>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
[ paulmck: Apply Andrea Parri's off-list feedback. ]
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
|
||
|
Alan Stern
|
a3f600d92d |
tools/memory-model: Add SRCU support
Add support for SRCU. Herd creates srcu events and linux-kernel.def associates them with three possible annotations (srcu-lock, srcu-unlock, and sync-srcu) corresponding to the API routines srcu_read_lock(), srcu_read_unlock(), and synchronize_srcu(). The linux-kernel.bell file now declares the annotations and determines matching lock/unlock pairs delimiting SRCU read-side critical sections, and it also checks for synchronize_srcu() calls inside an RCU critical section (which would generate a "sleeping in atomic context" error in real kernel code). The linux-kernel.cat file now adds SRCU-induced ordering, analogous to the existing RCU-induced ordering, to the gp and rcu-fence relations. Curiously enough, these small changes to the model's .cat code are all that is needed to describe SRCU. Portions of this patch (linux-kernel.def and the first hunk in linux-kernel.bell) were written by Luc Maranget. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> CC: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> Tested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
284749b0ae |
tools/memory-model: Refactor some RCU relations
In preparation for adding support for SRCU, refactor the definitions of rcu-fence, rcu-rscsi, rcu-link, and rb by moving the po and po? terms from the first two to the second two. An rcu-gp relation is added; it is equivalent to gp with the po and po? terms removed. This is necessary because for SRCU, we will have to use the loc relation to check that the terms at the start and end of each disjunct in the definition of rcu-fence refer to the same srcu_struct location. If these terms are hidden behind po and po?, there's no way to carry out this check. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> Tested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
0172d9e322 |
tools/memory-model: Rename some RCU relations
In preparation for adding support for SRCU, rename "crit" to "rcu-rscs", rename "rscs" to "rcu-rscsi", and remove the restriction to only the outermost level of nesting. The name change is needed for disambiguating RCU read-side critical sections from SRCU read-side critical sections. Adding the "i" at the end of "rcu-rscsi" emphasizes that the relation is inverted; it links rcu_read_unlock() events to their corresponding preceding rcu_read_lock() events. The restriction to outermost nesting levels was never essential; it was included mostly to show that it could be done. Rather than add equivalent unnecessary code for SRCU lock nesting, it seemed better to remove the existing code. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> Tested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> |
||
|
Andrea Parri
|
5b735eb1ce |
tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
The kernel documents smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() the following way:
"Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that
an UNLOCK+LOCK pair acts as a full barrier. This guarantee applies
if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable."
Formalize in LKMM the above guarantee by defining (new) mb-links according
to the law:
([M] ; po ; [UL] ; (co | po) ; [LKW] ;
fencerel(After-unlock-lock) ; [M])
where the component ([UL] ; co ; [LKW]) identifies "UNLOCK+LOCK pairs on
the same lock variable" and the component ([UL] ; po ; [LKW]) identifies
"UNLOCK+LOCK pairs executed by the same CPU".
In particular, the LKMM forbids the following two behaviors (the second
litmus test below is based on:
Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.html
c.f., Section "Tree RCU Grace Period Memory Ordering Building Blocks"):
C after-unlock-lock-same-cpu
(*
* Result: Never
*)
{}
P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
{
int r0;
spin_lock(s);
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
spin_unlock(s);
spin_lock(t);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
spin_unlock(t);
}
P1(int *x, int *y)
{
int r0;
WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
smp_mb();
r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}
exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0)
C after-unlock-lock-same-lock-variable
(*
* Result: Never
*)
{}
P0(spinlock_t *s, int *x, int *y)
{
int r0;
spin_lock(s);
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
spin_unlock(s);
}
P1(spinlock_t *s, int *y, int *z)
{
int r0;
spin_lock(s);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
r0 = READ_ONCE(*z);
spin_unlock(s);
}
P2(int *z, int *x)
{
int r0;
WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
smp_mb();
r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}
exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0 /\ 2:r0=0)
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203230451.28921-1-paulmck@linux.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
||
|
Alan Stern
|
6e89e831a9 |
tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
More than one kernel developer has expressed the opinion that the LKMM should enforce ordering of writes by locking. In other words, given the following code: WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); spin_unlock(&s): spin_lock(&s); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); the stores to x and y should be propagated in order to all other CPUs, even though those other CPUs might not access the lock s. In terms of the memory model, this means expanding the cumul-fence relation. Locks should also provide read-read (and read-write) ordering in a similar way. Given: READ_ONCE(x); spin_unlock(&s); spin_lock(&s); READ_ONCE(y); // or WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); the load of x should be executed before the load of (or store to) y. The LKMM already provides this ordering, but it provides it even in the case where the two accesses are separated by a release/acquire pair of fences rather than unlock/lock. This would prevent architectures from using weakly ordered implementations of release and acquire, which seems like an unnecessary restriction. The patch therefore removes the ordering requirement from the LKMM for that case. There are several arguments both for and against this change. Let us refer to these enhanced ordering properties by saying that the LKMM would require locks to be RCtso (a bit of a misnomer, but analogous to RCpc and RCsc) and it would require ordinary acquire/release only to be RCpc. (Note: In the following, the phrase "all supported architectures" is meant not to include RISC-V. Although RISC-V is indeed supported by the kernel, the implementation is still somewhat in a state of flux and therefore statements about it would be premature.) Pros: The kernel already provides RCtso ordering for locks on all supported architectures, even though this is not stated explicitly anywhere. Therefore the LKMM should formalize it. In theory, guaranteeing RCtso ordering would reduce the need for additional barrier-like constructs meant to increase the ordering strength of locks. Will Deacon and Peter Zijlstra are strongly in favor of formalizing the RCtso requirement. Linus Torvalds and Will would like to go even further, requiring locks to have RCsc behavior (ordering preceding writes against later reads), but they recognize that this would incur a noticeable performance degradation on the POWER architecture. Linus also points out that people have made the mistake, in the past, of assuming that locking has stronger ordering properties than is currently guaranteed, and this change would reduce the likelihood of such mistakes. Not requiring ordinary acquire/release to be any stronger than RCpc may prove advantageous for future architectures, allowing them to implement smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() with more efficient machine instructions than would be possible if the operations had to be RCtso. Will and Linus approve this rationale, hypothetical though it is at the moment (it may end up affecting the RISC-V implementation). The same argument may or may not apply to RMW-acquire/release; see also the second Con entry below. Linus feels that locks should be easy for people to use without worrying about memory consistency issues, since they are so pervasive in the kernel, whereas acquire/release is much more of an "experts only" tool. Requiring locks to be RCtso is a step in this direction. Cons: Andrea Parri and Luc Maranget think that locks should have the same ordering properties as ordinary acquire/release (indeed, Luc points out that the names "acquire" and "release" derive from the usage of locks). Andrea points out that having different ordering properties for different forms of acquires and releases is not only unnecessary, it would also be confusing and unmaintainable. Locks are constructed from lower-level primitives, typically RMW-acquire (for locking) and ordinary release (for unlock). It is illogical to require stronger ordering properties from the high-level operations than from the low-level operations they comprise. Thus, this change would make while (cmpxchg_acquire(&s, 0, 1) != 0) cpu_relax(); an incorrect implementation of spin_lock(&s) as far as the LKMM is concerned. In theory this weakness can be ameliorated by changing the LKMM even further, requiring RMW-acquire/release also to be RCtso (which it already is on all supported architectures). As far as I know, nobody has singled out any examples of code in the kernel that actually relies on locks being RCtso. (People mumble about RCU and the scheduler, but nobody has pointed to any actual code. If there are any real cases, their number is likely quite small.) If RCtso ordering is not needed, why require it? A handful of locking constructs (qspinlocks, qrwlocks, and mcs_spinlocks) are built on top of smp_cond_load_acquire() instead of an RMW-acquire instruction. It currently provides only the ordinary acquire semantics, not the stronger ordering this patch would require of locks. In theory this could be ameliorated by requiring smp_cond_load_acquire() in combination with ordinary release also to be RCtso (which is currently true on all supported architectures). On future weakly ordered architectures, people may be able to implement locks in a non-RCtso fashion with significant performance improvement. Meeting the RCtso requirement would necessarily add run-time overhead. Overall, the technical aspects of these arguments seem relatively minor, and it appears mostly to boil down to a matter of opinion. Since the opinions of senior kernel maintainers such as Linus, Peter, and Will carry more weight than those of Luc and Andrea, this patch changes the model in accordance with the maintainers' wishes. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu> Cc: akiyks@gmail.com Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr Cc: npiggin@gmail.com Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180926182920.27644-2-paulmck@linux.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
||
|
Andrea Parri
|
1a00b4554d |
tools/memory-model: Update ASPLOS information
ASPLOS 2018 was held in March: make sure this is reflected in header comments and references. Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526340837-12222-18-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
9d036883a1 |
tools/memory-model: Redefine rb in terms of rcu-fence
This patch reorganizes the definition of rb in the Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model. The relation is now expressed in terms of rcu-fence, which consists of a sequence of gp and rscs links separated by rcu-link links, in which the number of occurrences of gp is >= the number of occurrences of rscs. Arguments similar to those published in http://diy.inria.fr/linux/long.pdf show that rcu-fence behaves like an inter-CPU strong fence. Furthermore, the definition of rb in terms of rcu-fence is highly analogous to the definition of pb in terms of strong-fence, which can help explain why rcu-path expresses a form of temporal ordering. This change should not affect the semantics of the memory model, just its internal organization. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: akiyks@gmail.com Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr Cc: npiggin@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526340837-12222-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
1ee2da5f9b |
tools/memory-model: Rename link and rcu-path to rcu-link and rb
This patch makes a simple non-functional change to the RCU portion of the Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model by renaming the "link" and "rcu-path" relations to "rcu-link" and "rb", respectively. The name "link" was an unfortunate choice, because it was too generic and subject to confusion with other meanings of the same word, which occur quite often in LKMM documentation. The name "rcu-path" is not very appropriate, because the relation is analogous to the happens-before (hb) and propagates-before (pb) relations -- although that fact won't become apparent until the second patch in this series. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: akiyks@gmail.com Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr Cc: npiggin@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526340837-12222-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
||
|
Alan Stern
|
bf28ae5627 |
tools/memory-model: Remove rb-dep, smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference
Since commit |
||
|
Paul E. McKenney
|
cac79a39f2 |
tools/memory-model: Convert underscores to hyphens
Typical cat-language code uses hyphens for word separators in identifiers, but several LKMM identifiers use underscores instead. This commit therefore converts underscores to hyphens in the .bell- and .cat-file identifiers corresponding to smp_mb__before_atomic(), smp_mb__after_atomic(), and smp_mb__after_spinlock(). Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: akiyks@gmail.com Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr Cc: nborisov@suse.com Cc: npiggin@gmail.com Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu Cc: will.deacon@arm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1519169112-20593-11-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
||
|
Andrea Parri
|
48d44d4e8a |
tools/memory-model: Clarify the origin/scope of the tool name
Ingo pointed out that: "The "memory model" name is overly generic, ambiguous and somewhat misleading, as we usually mean the virtual memory layout/model when we say "memory model". GCC too uses it in that sense [...]" Make it clear that tools/memory-model/ uses the term "memory model" as shorthand for "memory consistency model" by calling out this convention in tools/memory-model/README. Stick to the original "memory model" term in sources' headers and for the subsystem name. Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: akiyks@gmail.com Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: dhowells@redhat.com Cc: j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: luc.maranget@inria.fr Cc: nborisov@suse.com Cc: npiggin@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1519169112-20593-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
||
|
Paul E. McKenney
|
1c27b644c0 |
Automate memory-barriers.txt; provide Linux-kernel memory model
There is some reason to believe that Documentation/memory-barriers.txt could use some help, and a major purpose of this patch is to provide that help in the form of a design-time tool that can produce all valid executions of a small fragment of concurrent Linux-kernel code, which is called a "litmus test". This tool's functionality is roughly similar to a full state-space search. Please note that this is a design-time tool, not useful for regression testing. However, we hope that the underlying Linux-kernel memory model will be incorporated into other tools capable of analyzing large bodies of code for regression-testing purposes. The main tool is herd7, together with the linux-kernel.bell, linux-kernel.cat, linux-kernel.cfg, linux-kernel.def, and lock.cat files added by this patch. The herd7 executable takes the other files as input, and all of these files collectively define the Linux-kernel memory memory model. A brief description of each of these other files is provided in the README file. Although this tool does have its limitations, which are documented in the README file, it does improve on the version reported on in the LWN series (https://lwn.net/Articles/718628/ and https://lwn.net/Articles/720550/) by supporting locking and arithmetic, including a much wider variety of read-modify-write atomic operations. Please note that herd7 is not part of this submission, but is freely available from http://diy.inria.fr/sources/index.html (and via "git" at https://github.com/herd/herdtools7). A second tool is klitmus7, which converts litmus tests to loadable kernel modules for direct testing. As with herd7, the klitmus7 code is freely available from http://diy.inria.fr/sources/index.html (and via "git" at https://github.com/herd/herdtools7). Of course, litmus tests are not always the best way to fully understand a memory model, so this patch also includes Documentation/explanation.txt, which describes the memory model in detail. In addition, Documentation/recipes.txt provides example known-good and known-bad use cases for those who prefer working by example. This patch also includes a few sample litmus tests, and a great many more litmus tests are available at https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus. This patch was the result of a most excellent collaboration founded by Jade Alglave and also including Alan Stern, Andrea Parri, and Luc Maranget. For more details on the history of this collaboration, please refer to the Linux-kernel memory model presentations at 2016 LinuxCon EU, 2016 Kernel Summit, 2016 Linux Plumbers Conference, 2017 linux.conf.au, or 2017 Linux Plumbers Conference microconference. However, one aspect of the history does bear repeating due to weak copyright tracking earlier in this project, which extends back to early 2015. This weakness came to light in late 2017 after an LKMM presentation by Paul in which an audience member noted the similarity of some LKMM code to code in early published papers. This prompted a copyright review. From Alan Stern: To say that the model was mine is not entirely accurate. Pieces of it (especially the Scpv and Atomic axioms) were taken directly from Jade's models. And of course the Happens-before and Propagation relations and axioms were heavily based on Jade and Luc's work, even though they weren't identical to the earlier versions. Only the RCU portion was completely original. . . . One can make a much better case that I wrote the bulk of lock.cat. However, it was inspired by Luc's earlier version (and still shares some elements in common), and of course it benefited from feedback and testing from all members of our group. The model prior to Alan's was Luc Maranget's. From Luc: I totally agree on Alan Stern's account of the linux kernel model genesis. I thank him for his acknowledgments of my participation to previous model drafts. I'd like to complete Alan Stern's statement: any bell cat code I have written has its roots in discussions with Jade Alglave and Paul McKenney. Moreover I have borrowed cat and bell code written by Jade Alglave freely. This copyright review therefore resulted in late adds to the copyright statements of several files. Discussion of v1 has raised several issues, which we do not believe should block acceptance given that this level of change will be ongoing, just as it has been with memory-barriers.txt: o Under what conditions should ordering provided by pure locking be seen by CPUs not holding the relevant lock(s)? In particular, should the message-passing pattern be forbidden? o Should examples involving C11 release sequences be forbidden? Note that this C11 is still a moving target for this issue: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0735r0.html o Some details of the handling of internal dependencies for atomic read-modify-write atomic operations are still subject to debate. o Changes recently accepted into mainline greatly reduce the need to handle DEC Alpha as a special case. These changes add an smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE(), thus causing Alpha to respect ordering of dependent reads. If these changes stick, the memory model can be simplified accordingly. o Will changes be required to accommodate RISC-V? Differences from v1: (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171113184031.GA26302@linux.vnet.ibm.com) o Add SPDX notations to .bell and .cat files, replacing textual license statements. o Add reference to upcoming ASPLOS paper to .bell and .cat files. o Updated identifier names in .bell and .cat files to match those used in the ASPLOS paper. o Updates to READMEs and other documentation based on review feedback. o Added a memory-ordering cheatsheet. o Update sigs to new Co-Developed-by and add acks and reviewed-bys. o Simplify rules detecting nested RCU read-side critical sections. o Update copyright statements as noted above. Co-Developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Co-Developed-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Co-Developed-by: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Co-Developed-by: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Co-Developed-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Signed-off-by: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Signed-off-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Acked-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Cc: <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org> |