On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:54 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Andrii,
> This is quite exciting. Some comments below:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:24:08PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded.litmus b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded.litmus
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..558f054fb0b4
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded.litmus
> > @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
> > +C bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded
> > +
> > +(*
> > + * Result: Always
> > + *
> > + * This litmus test validates BPF ring buffer implementation under the
> > + * following assumptions:
> > + * - 1 producer;
> > + * - 1 consumer;
> > + * - ring buffer has capacity for only 1 record.
> > + *
> > + * Expectations:
> > + * - 1 record pushed into ring buffer;
> > + * - 0 or 1 element is consumed.
> > + * - no failures.
> > + *)
> > +
> > +{
> > + atomic_t dropped;
> > +}
> > +
> > +P0(int *lenFail, int *len1, int *cx, int *px)
> > +{
> > + int *rLenPtr;
> > + int rLen;
> > + int rPx;
> > + int rCx;
> > + int rFail;
> > +
> > + rFail = 0;
> > +
> > + rCx = smp_load_acquire(cx);
> > + rPx = smp_load_acquire(px);
>
> Is it possible for you to put some more comments around which ACQUIRE is
> paired with which RELEASE? And, in general more comments around the reason
> for a certain memory barrier and what pairs with what. In the kernel sources,
> the barriers needs a comment anyway.
>
> > + if (rCx < rPx) {
> > + if (rCx == 0) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else {
> > + rLenPtr = lenFail;
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rLen = smp_load_acquire(rLenPtr);
> > + if (rLen == 0) {
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + } else if (rLen == 1) {
> > + rCx = rCx + 1;
> > + smp_store_release(cx, rCx);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +P1(int *lenFail, int *len1, spinlock_t *rb_lock, int *px, int *cx, atomic_t *dropped)
> > +{
> > + int rPx;
> > + int rCx;
> > + int rFail;
> > + int *rLenPtr;
> > +
> > + rFail = 0;
> > +
> > + rCx = smp_load_acquire(cx);
> > + spin_lock(rb_lock);
> > +
> > + rPx = *px;
> > + if (rPx - rCx >= 1) {
> > + atomic_inc(dropped);
>
> Why does 'dropped' need to be atomic if you are always incrementing under a
> lock?
It doesn't, strictly speaking, but making it atomic in litmus test was
just more convenient, especially that I initially also had a lock-less
variant of this algorithm.
>
> > + spin_unlock(rb_lock);
> > + } else {
> > + if (rPx == 0) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else {
> > + rLenPtr = lenFail;
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + *rLenPtr = -1;
>
> Clarify please the need to set the length intermittently to -1. Thanks.
This corresponds to setting a "busy bit" in kernel implementation.
These litmus tests are supposed to be correlated with in-kernel
implementation, I'm not sure I want to maintain extra 4 copies of
comments here and in kernel code. Especially for 2-producer cases,
there are 2 identical P1 and P2, which is unfortunate, but I haven't
figured out how to have a re-usable pieces of code with litmus tests
:)
>
> > + smp_store_release(px, rPx + 1);
> > +
> > + spin_unlock(rb_lock);
> > +
> > + smp_store_release(rLenPtr, 1);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +exists (
> > + 0:rFail=0 /\ 1:rFail=0
> > + /\
> > + (
> > + (dropped=0 /\ px=1 /\ len1=1 /\ (cx=0 \/ cx=1))
> > + )
> > +)
> > diff --git a/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound.litmus b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound.litmus
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..7ab5d0e6e49f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound.litmus
>
> I wish there was a way to pass args to litmus tests, then perhaps it would
> have been possible to condense some of these tests. :-)
It wouldn't help much, actually, because litmus tests can't have
arrays. See all those "if selectors" between len1 and len2, I had to
do explicitly.
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+2p1c+bounded.litmus b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+2p1c+bounded.litmus
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..83f80328c92b
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+2p1c+bounded.litmus
> [...]
> > +P0(int *lenFail, int *len1, int *cx, int *px)
> > +{
> > + int *rLenPtr;
> > + int rLen;
> > + int rPx;
> > + int rCx;
> > + int rFail;
> > +
> > + rFail = 0;
> > +
> > + rCx = smp_load_acquire(cx);
> > + rPx = smp_load_acquire(px);
> > + if (rCx < rPx) {
> > + if (rCx == 0) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else if (rCx == 1) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else {
> > + rLenPtr = lenFail;
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rLen = smp_load_acquire(rLenPtr);
> > + if (rLen == 0) {
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + } else if (rLen == 1) {
> > + rCx = rCx + 1;
> > + smp_store_release(cx, rCx);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + rPx = smp_load_acquire(px);
> > + if (rCx < rPx) {
> > + if (rCx == 0) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else if (rCx == 1) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else {
> > + rLenPtr = lenFail;
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rLen = smp_load_acquire(rLenPtr);
> > + if (rLen == 0) {
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + } else if (rLen == 1) {
> > + rCx = rCx + 1;
> > + smp_store_release(cx, rCx);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +P1(int *lenFail, int *len1, spinlock_t *rb_lock, int *px, int *cx, atomic_t *dropped)
> > +{
> > + int rPx;
> > + int rCx;
> > + int rFail;
> > + int *rLenPtr;
> > +
> > + rFail = 0;
> > + rLenPtr = lenFail;
> > +
> > + rCx = smp_load_acquire(cx);
> > + spin_lock(rb_lock);
> > +
> > + rPx = *px;
> > + if (rPx - rCx >= 1) {
> > + atomic_inc(dropped);
> > + spin_unlock(rb_lock);
> > + } else {
> > + if (rPx == 0) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else if (rPx == 1) {
> > + rLenPtr = len1;
> > + } else {
> > + rLenPtr = lenFail;
> > + rFail = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + *rLenPtr = -1;
> > + smp_store_release(px, rPx + 1);
> > +
> > + spin_unlock(rb_lock);
> > +
> > + smp_store_release(rLenPtr, 1);
>
> I ran a test replacing the last 2 statements above with the following and it
> still works:
>
> spin_unlock(rb_lock);
> WRITE_ONCE(*rLenPtr, 1);
>
> Wouldn't you expect the test to catch an issue? The spin_unlock is already a
> RELEASE barrier.
Well, apparently it's not an issue and WRITE_ONCE would work as well
:) My original version actually used WRITE_ONCE here. See [0] and
discussion in [1] after which I removed all the WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE
in favor of store_release/load_acquire for consistency.
[0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200513192532.4058934-3-andriin@xxxxxx/
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200513192532.4058934-2-andriin@xxxxxx/
>
> Suggestion: It is hard to review the patch because it is huge, it would be
> good to split this up into 4 patches for each of the tests. But upto you :)
Those 4 files are partial copies of each other, not sure splitting
them actually would be easier. If anyone else thinks the same, though,
I'll happily split.
>
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
> [...]
>
