Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 14 Jan 2023 21:15:10 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test) |
| |
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 03:19:06PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > 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
I have added this, thank you!
> 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.
I have made this change, again, thank you!
But I also added this:
flag empty srcu-rscs as no-srcu-readers
And it is always flagged. So far, I have not found any sort of relation that connects Srcu-lock to Srcu-unlock other than po. I tried data, ctrl, addr, rf, rfi, and combinations thereof.
What am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
|  |