Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:48:02 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test) |
| |
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 12:40:39PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:32:41PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Making LKMM correctly model all of this has been on my todo list for an > > > embarrassingly long time. > > > > But there is no time like the present... > > > > Here is what mainline has to recognize SRCU read-side critical sections: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > (* Compute matching pairs of nested Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *) > > let srcu-rscs = let rec > > unmatched-locks = Srcu-lock \ domain(matched) > > and unmatched-unlocks = Srcu-unlock \ range(matched) > > and unmatched = unmatched-locks | unmatched-unlocks > > and unmatched-po = ([unmatched] ; po ; [unmatched]) & loc > > and unmatched-locks-to-unlocks = > > ([unmatched-locks] ; po ; [unmatched-unlocks]) & loc > > and matched = matched | (unmatched-locks-to-unlocks \ > > (unmatched-po ; unmatched-po)) > > in matched > > > > (* Validate nesting *) > > flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking > > flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking > > > > (* Check for use of synchronize_srcu() inside an RCU critical section *) > > flag ~empty rcu-rscs & (po ; [Sync-srcu] ; po) as invalid-sleep > > > > (* Validate SRCU dynamic match *) > > flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as srcu-bad-nesting > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > And here is what I just now tried: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > (* Compute matching pairs of Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *) > > let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; rfi ; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc > > This doesn't make sense. Herd treats srcu_read_lock() as a load > operation (it takes a pointer as argument and returns a value) and > srcu_read_unlock() as a store operation (it takes both a pointer and a > value as arguments and returns nothing). So you can't connect them > with an rfi link; stores don't "read-from" loads. > > I suppose you might be able to connect them with a data dependency, > though. But then how would you handle situations where two unlock > calls both use the value returned from a single lock call? You'd have > to check explicitly that srcu-rscs connected each lock with only one > unlock.
Thank you! I will give the dependencies a try.
Thanx, Paul
> Alan > > > (* Validate nesting *) > > flag empty srcu-rscs as no-srcu-readers > > flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking > > flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking > > > > (* Check for use of synchronize_srcu() inside an RCU critical section *) > > flag ~empty rcu-rscs & (po ; [Sync-srcu] ; po) as invalid-sleep > > > > (* Validate SRCU dynamic match *) > > flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as srcu-bad-nesting > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > This gets me "Flag no-srcu-readers" when running this litmus test: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > C C-srcu-nest-1 > > > > (* > > * Result: Never > > *) > > > > {} > > > > P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s) > > { > > int r1; > > int r2; > > int r3; > > > > r3 = srcu_read_lock(s); > > r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); > > srcu_read_unlock(s, r3); > > r3 = srcu_read_lock(s); > > r2 = READ_ONCE(*y); > > srcu_read_unlock(s, r3); > > } > > > > P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s) > > { > > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); > > synchronize_srcu(s); > > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > > } > > > > locations [0:r1] > > exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > So what did I mess up this time? ;-) > > > > Thanx, Paul
|  |