Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 14 Jan 2023 15:19:06 -0500 | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test) |
| |
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:15:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Nevertheless, here is the resulting .bell fragment: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > (* Compute matching pairs of Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *) > let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; data ; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc > > (* 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
I forgot to mention... An appropriate check for one srcu_read_lock() matched to more than one srcu_read_unlock() would be something like this:
flag ~empty (srcu-rscs^-1 ; srcu-rscs) \ id as multiple-unlocks
Alan
PS: Do you agree that we should change the names of the first two flags above to unbalanced-srcu-lock and unbalanced-srcu-unlock, respectively (and similarly for the rcu checks)? It might help to be a little more specific about how the locking is wrong when we detect an error.
| |