| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Expand the discussion of SRCU and its read-side critical sections in
the Linux Kernel Memory Model documentation file explanation.txt. The
new material discusses recent changes to the memory model made in
commit 6cd244c87428 ("tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU
semantics").
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Co-developed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
|
As reported by Viktor, plain accesses in LKMM are weaker than
accesses to registers: the latter carry dependencies but the former
do not. This is exemplified in the following snippet:
int r = READ_ONCE(*x);
WRITE_ONCE(*y, r);
Here a data dependency links the READ_ONCE() to the WRITE_ONCE(),
preserving their order, because the model treats r as a register.
If r is turned into a memory location accessed by plain accesses,
however, the link is broken and the order between READ_ONCE() and
WRITE_ONCE() is no longer preserved.
This is too conservative, since any optimizations on plain
accesses that might break dependencies are also possible on
registers; it also contradicts the intuitive notion of "dependency"
as the data stored by the WRITE_ONCE() does depend on the data read
by the READ_ONCE(), independently of whether r is a register or a
memory location.
This is resolved by redefining all dependencies to include
dependencies carried by memory accesses; a dependency is said to be
carried by memory accesses (in the model: carry-dep) from one load
to another load if the initial load is followed by an arbitrarily
long sequence alternating between stores and loads of the same
thread, where the data of each store depends on the previous load,
and is read by the next load.
Any dependency linking the final load in the sequence to another
access also links the initial load in the sequence to that access.
More deep details can be found in this LKML discussion:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d86295788ad14a02874ab030ddb8a6f8@huawei.com/
Reported-by: Viktor Vafeiadis <viktor@mpi-sws.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
|
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>
|
|
The current informal control dependency definition in explanation.txt is
too broad and, as discussed, needs to be updated.
Consider the following example:
> if(READ_ONCE(x))
> return 42;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(y, 42);
>
> return 21;
The read event determines whether the write event will be executed "at all"
- as per the current definition - but the formal LKMM does not recognize
this as a control dependency.
Introduce a new definition which includes the requirement for the second
memory access event to syntactically lie within the arm of a non-loop
conditional.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220615114330.2573952-1-paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de/
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Charalampos Mainas <charalampos.mainas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pramod Bhatotia <pramod.bhatotia@in.tum.de>
Cc: Soham Chakraborty <s.s.chakraborty@tudelft.nl>
Cc: Martin Fink <martin.fink@in.tum.de>
Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
|
Paul Heidekrüger pointed out that the Linux Kernel Memory Model
documentation doesn't mention the distinction between syntactic and
semantic dependencies. This is an important difference, because the
compiler can easily break dependencies that are only syntactic, not
semantic.
This patch adds a few paragraphs to the LKMM documentation explaining
these issues and illustrating how they can matter.
Suggested-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de>
Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
|
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>
|
|
A misspelled git-grep regex revealed that smp_mb__after_spinlock()
was misspelled in explanation.txt. This commit adds the missing "_".
Fixes: 1c27b644c0fd ("Automate memory-barriers.txt; provide Linux-kernel memory model")
[ paulmck: Apply Alan Stern commit-log feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull locking updates from Ingo Molnar:
- LKMM updates: mostly documentation changes, but also some new litmus
tests for atomic ops.
- KCSAN updates: the most important change is that GCC 11 now has all
fixes in place to support KCSAN, so GCC support can be enabled again.
Also more annotations.
- futex updates: minor cleanups and simplifications
- seqlock updates: merge preparatory changes/cleanups for the
'associated locks' facilities.
- lockdep updates:
- simplify IRQ trace event handling
- add various new debug checks
- simplify header dependencies, split out <linux/lockdep_types.h>,
decouple lockdep from other low level headers some more
- fix NMI handling
- misc cleanups and smaller fixes
* tag 'locking-core-2020-08-03' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: (60 commits)
kcsan: Improve IRQ state trace reporting
lockdep: Refactor IRQ trace events fields into struct
seqlock: lockdep assert non-preemptibility on seqcount_t write
lockdep: Add preemption enabled/disabled assertion APIs
seqlock: Implement raw_seqcount_begin() in terms of raw_read_seqcount()
seqlock: Add kernel-doc for seqcount_t and seqlock_t APIs
seqlock: Reorder seqcount_t and seqlock_t API definitions
seqlock: seqcount_t latch: End read sections with read_seqcount_retry()
seqlock: Properly format kernel-doc code samples
Documentation: locking: Describe seqlock design and usage
locking/qspinlock: Do not include atomic.h from qspinlock_types.h
locking/atomic: Move ATOMIC_INIT into linux/types.h
lockdep: Move list.h inclusion into lockdep.h
locking/lockdep: Fix TRACE_IRQFLAGS vs. NMIs
futex: Remove unused or redundant includes
futex: Consistently use fshared as boolean
futex: Remove needless goto's
futex: Remove put_futex_key()
rwsem: fix commas in initialisation
docs: locking: Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones
...
|
|
smp_read_barrier_depends() has gone the way of mmiowb() and so many
esoteric memory barriers before it. Drop the two mentions of this
deceased barrier from the LKMM informal explanation document.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
|
|
The definition of "conflict" should not include the type of access nor
whether the accesses are concurrent or not, which this patch addresses.
The definition of "data race" remains unchanged.
The definition of "conflict" as we know it and is cited by various
papers on memory consistency models appeared in [1]: "Two accesses to
the same variable conflict if at least one is a write; two operations
conflict if they execute conflicting accesses."
The LKMM as well as the C11 memory model are adaptations of
data-race-free, which are based on the work in [2]. Necessarily, we need
both conflicting data operations (plain) and synchronization operations
(marked). For example, C11's definition is based on [3], which defines a
"data race" as: "Two memory operations conflict if they access the same
memory location, and at least one of them is a store, atomic store, or
atomic read-modify-write operation. In a sequentially consistent
execution, two memory operations from different threads form a type 1
data race if they conflict, at least one of them is a data operation,
and they are adjacent in <T (i.e., they may be executed concurrently)."
[1] D. Shasha, M. Snir, "Efficient and Correct Execution of Parallel
Programs that Share Memory", 1988.
URL: http://snir.cs.illinois.edu/listed/J21.pdf
[2] S. Adve, "Designing Memory Consistency Models for Shared-Memory
Multiprocessors", 1993.
URL: http://sadve.cs.illinois.edu/Publications/thesis.pdf
[3] H.-J. Boehm, S. Adve, "Foundations of the C++ Concurrency Memory
Model", 2008.
URL: https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2008/HPL-2008-56.pdf
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
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>
|
|
explanation.txt
This patch updates the Linux Kernel Memory Model's explanation.txt
file by adding a section devoted to the model's handling of plain
accesses and data-race detection.
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>
|
|
explanation.txt
This patch updates the Linux Kernel Memory Model's explanation.txt
file to incorporate the introduction of the rcu-order relation and
the redefinition of rcu-fence made by commit 15aa25cbf0cc
("tools/memory-model: Change definition of rcu-fence").
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>
|
|
This patch fixes a few minor typos and improves word usage in a few
places in the Linux Kernel Memory Model's explanation.txt file.
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
|
|
The formal memory consistency model has added support for plain accesses
(and data races). While updating the informal documentation to describe
this addition to the model is highly desirable and important future work,
update the informal documentation to at least acknowledge such addition.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
|
|
To reduce ambiguity in the more exotic ->prop ordering example, this
commit uses the term cumul-fence instead of the term fence for the two
fences, so that the implict ->rfe on loads/stores to Y are covered by
the description.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190729121745.GA140682@google.com
Suggested-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
The recent commit adding support for SRCU to the Linux Kernel Memory
Model ended up changing the names and meanings of several relations.
This patch updates the explanation.txt documentation file to reflect
those changes.
It also revises the statement of the RCU Guarantee to a more accurate
form, and it adds a short paragraph mentioning the new support for SRCU.
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
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: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
|
|
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>
|
|
The tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt file says
"For each other CPU C', smb_wmb() forces all po-earlier stores"
This commit therefore replaces the "smb_wmb()" with "smp_wmb()".
Signed-off-by: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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: npiggin@gmail.com
Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716180605.16115-13-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
smp_read_barrier_depends(), and lockless_dereference()
Commit:
bf28ae562744 ("tools/memory-model: Remove rb-dep, smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference")
was merged too early, while it was still in RFC form. This patch adds in
the missing pieces.
Akira pointed out some typos in the original patch, and he noted that
cheatsheet.txt should indicate that READ_ONCE() now implies an address
dependency. Andrea suggested documenting the relationship betwwen
unsuccessful RMW operations and address dependencies.
Andrea pointed out that the macro for rcu_dereference() in linux.def
should now use the "once" annotation instead of "deref". He also
suggested that the comments should mention commit:
5a8897cc7631 ("locking/atomics/alpha: Add smp_read_barrier_depends() to _release()/_relaxed() atomics")
... as an important precursor, and he contributed commit:
cb13b424e986 ("locking/xchg/alpha: Add unconditional memory barrier to cmpxchg()")
which is another prerequisite.
Suggested-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
[ Fixed read_read_lock() typo reported by Akira. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
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: will.deacon@arm.com
Fixes: bf28ae562744 ("tools/memory-model: Remove rb-dep, smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1520443660-16858-4-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
|
lockless_dereference
Since commit 76ebbe78f739 ("locking/barriers: Add implicit
smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE()") was merged for the 4.15
kernel, it has not been necessary to use smp_read_barrier_depends().
Similarly, commit 59ecbbe7b31c ("locking/barriers: Kill
lockless_dereference()") removed lockless_dereference() from the
kernel.
Since these primitives are no longer part of the kernel, they do not
belong in the Linux Kernel Memory Consistency Model. This patch
removes them, along with the internal rb-dep relation, and updates the
revelant documentation.
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
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: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1519169112-20593-12-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
|
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>
|
