On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:57:59AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:22:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > From: Luc Maranget <Luc.Maranget@xxxxxxxx> > > > > This commit first adds a trivial macro for spin_is_locked() to > > linux-kernel.def. > > > > It also adds cat code for enumerating all possible matches of lock > > write events (set LKW) with islocked events returning true (set RL, > > for Read from Lock), and unlock write events (set UL) with islocked > > events returning false (set RU, for Read from Unlock). Note that this > > intentionally does not model uniprocessor kernels (CONFIG_SMP=n) built > > with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=n, in which spin_is_locked() unconditionally > > returns zero. > > > > It also adds a pair of litmus tests demonstrating the minimal ordering > > provided by spin_is_locked() in conjunction with spin_lock(). Will Deacon > > noted that this minimal ordering happens on ARMv8: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180226162426.GB17158@xxxxxxx > > > > Notice that herd7 installations strictly older than version 7.49 > > do not handle the new constructs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I understand that it's acceptable to not list all maintainers in the > commit message, but that does look like an omission... One that is corrected by the "--cc parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx" I give to "git send-email", so people will not be able to slide submissions past you using this mechanism. But I had to rebase anyway, so I added your "Cc:". So now you are doubly covered! ;-) > > --- > > tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def | 1 + > > .../MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus | 30 ++++++++++++ > > .../MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus | 29 ++++++++++++ > > tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README | 10 ++++ > > tools/memory-model/lock.cat | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 5 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > create mode 100644 tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def > > index 6bd3bc431b3d..f0553bd37c08 100644 > > --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def > > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ cmpxchg_release(X,V,W) __cmpxchg{release}(X,V,W) > > spin_lock(X) { __lock(X); } > > spin_unlock(X) { __unlock(X); } > > spin_trylock(X) __trylock(X) > > +spin_is_locked(X) __islocked(X) > > > > // RCU > > rcu_read_lock() { __fence{rcu-lock}; } > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..37357404a08d > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ > > +C MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil > > + > > +(* > > + * Result: Never > > + * > > + * Do spinlocks combined with smp_mb__after_spinlock() provide order > > + * to outside observers using spin_is_locked() to sense the lock-held > > + * state, ordered by acquire? Note that when the first spin_is_locked() > > + * returns false and the second true, we know that the smp_load_acquire() > > + * executed before the lock was acquired (loosely speaking). > > + *) > > + > > +{ > > +} > > + > > +P0 (spinlock_t *lo, int *x) { > > + spin_lock(lo); > > + smp_mb__after_spinlock(); > > + WRITE_ONCE(*x,1); > > + spin_unlock(lo); > > +} > > + > > +P1 (spinlock_t *lo, int *x) { > > + int r1; int r2; int r3; > > + r1 = smp_load_acquire(x); > > + r2 = spin_is_locked(lo); > > + r3 = spin_is_locked(lo); > > +} > > + > > +exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0 /\ 1:r3=1) > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..ebc2668f95ff > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ > > +C MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil > > + > > +(* > > + * Result: Sometimes > > + * > > + * Do spinlocks provide order to outside observers using spin_is_locked() > > + * to sense the lock-held state, ordered by acquire? Note that when the > > + * first spin_is_locked() returns false and the second true, we know that > > + * the smp_load_acquire() executed before the lock was acquired (loosely > > + * speaking). > > + *) > > + > > +{ > > +} > > + > > +P0 (spinlock_t *lo, int *x) { > > + spin_lock(lo); > > + WRITE_ONCE(*x,1); > > + spin_unlock(lo); > > +} > > + > > +P1 (spinlock_t *lo, int *x) { > > + int r1; int r2; int r3; > > + r1 = smp_load_acquire(x); > > + r2 = spin_is_locked(lo); > > + r3 = spin_is_locked(lo); > > +} > > + > > +exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0 /\ 1:r3=1) > > Please fix the style in the above litmus tests (c.f., e.g., your 2/5). Ah, that is a bit non-standard, isn't it? Fixed! > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README > > index 04096fb8b8d9..6919909bbd0f 100644 > > --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README > > @@ -63,6 +63,16 @@ LB+poonceonces.litmus > > MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus > > As below, but with rcu_assign_pointer() and an rcu_dereference(). > > > > +MP+polockmbonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > + Protect the access with a lock and an smp_mb__after_spinlock() > > + in one process, and use an acquire load followed by a pair of > > + spin_is_locked() calls in the other process. > > + > > +MP+polockonce+poacquiresilsil.litmus > > + Protect the access with a lock in one process, and use an > > + acquire load followed by a pair of spin_is_locked() calls > > + in the other process. > > + > > MP+polocks.litmus > > As below, but with the second access of the writer process > > and the first access of reader process protected by a lock. > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/lock.cat b/tools/memory-model/lock.cat > > index ba4a4ec6d313..3b1439edc818 100644 > > --- a/tools/memory-model/lock.cat > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/lock.cat > > @@ -5,7 +5,11 @@ > > *) > > > > (* Generate coherence orders and handle lock operations *) > > - > > +(* > > + * Warning, crashes with herd7 versions strictly before 7.48. > > + * spin_islocked is functional from version 7.49. > > + * > > + *) > > include "cross.cat" > > > > (* From lock reads to their partner lock writes *) > > @@ -32,12 +36,16 @@ flag ~empty [M \ IW] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as mixed-lock-accesses > > (* The final value of a spinlock should not be tested *) > > flag ~empty [FW] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as lock-final > > > > - > > +(* > > + * Backward compatibility > > + *) > > +let RL = try RL with emptyset (* defined herd7 >= 7.49 *) > > +let RU = try RU with emptyset (* defined herd7 >= 7.49 *) > > (* > > * Put lock operations in their appropriate classes, but leave UL out of W > > * until after the co relation has been generated. > > *) > > -let R = R | LKR | LF > > +let R = R | LKR | LF | RL | RU > > let W = W | LKW > > > > let Release = Release | UL > > @@ -72,8 +80,45 @@ let all-possible-rfe-lf = > > > > (* Generate all rf relations for LF events *) > > with rfe-lf from cross(all-possible-rfe-lf) > > -let rf = rf | rfi-lf | rfe-lf > > > > +let rf-lf = rfe-lf | rfi-lf > > + > > +(* rf for RL events, ie islocked returning true, similar to LF above *) > > + > > +(* islocked returning true inside a critical section > > + * must read from the opening lock > > + *) > > +let rfi-rl = ([LKW] ; po-loc ; [RL]) \ ([LKW] ; po-loc ; [UL] ; po-loc) > > + > > +(* islocked returning true outside critical sections can match any > > + * external lock. > > + *) > > multi-lines comments are > > (* > * line > * line > *) Last I knew, Linus was actually OK with the style above, or at least the C-language equivalent. But might as well make these consistent with the rest of them. > > +let all-possible-rfe-rl = > > + let possible-rfe-lf r = > > + let pair-to-relation p = p ++ 0 > > + in map pair-to-relation ((LKW * {r}) & loc & ext) > > + in map possible-rfe-lf (RL \ range(rfi-rl)) > > + > > +with rfe-rl from cross(all-possible-rfe-rl) > > +let rf-rl = rfe-rl | rfi-rl > > + > > +(* Read from unlock, ie islocked returning false, slightly different *) > > + > > +(* islocked returning false can read from the last po-previous unlock *) > > +let rfi-ru = ([UL] ; po-loc ; [RU]) \ ([UL] ; po-loc ; [LKW] ; po-loc) > > + > > +(* any islocked returning false can read from any external unlock *) > > +let all-possible-rfe-ru = > > + let possible-rfe-ru r = > > please fix the alignment/indentation Hmmm... Three-space indentation vs. the two-space indentation that was already in the file, both of which are different than the single-tab indentation in linux-kernel.cat as well as elsewhere in the kernel. Left to myself, I would convert this to single-tab indentation. What to people think? > > + let pair-to-relation p = p ++ 0 > > + in map pair-to-relation (((UL|IW) * {r}) & loc & ext) > > spaces around binary operators ^^^^ It now looks like this: in map pair-to-relation (((UL | IW) * {r}) & loc & ext) Or it would, except that this conflicts with one of Alan's later patches. I don't trust myself to resolve this conflict at the moment, but would be happy to try it on a day when I haven't been beating my head on Linux-kernel RCU continuously (it actually seems to be working now, which must mean some mistake somewhere...). If there is agreement that this spacing change is the way we should go, of course. Thoughts? Thanx, Paul > Andrea > > > > + in map possible-rfe-ru RU > > + > > +with rfe-ru from cross(all-possible-rfe-ru) > > +let rf-ru = rfe-ru | rfi-ru > > + > > +(* Final rf relation *) > > +let rf = rf | rf-lf | rf-rl | rf-ru > > > > (* Generate all co relations, including LKW events but not UL *) > > let co0 = co0 | ([IW] ; loc ; [LKW]) | > > -- > > 2.5.2 > > >
