On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 07:51:39AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:11:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:01:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:54:16PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..955b9c7cdc7f > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > > > > +C LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce > > > > + > > > > +(* > > > > + * Result: Never > > > > + * > > > > + * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, all accesses > > > > + * in the first must execute before any accesses in the second, even if > > > > + * the critical sections are protected by different locks. > > > > > > One small nit; the above "all accesses" reads as if: > > > > > > spin_lock(s); > > > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > > > spin_unlock(s); > > > spin_lock(t); > > > r1 = READ_ONCE(*y); > > > spin_unlock(t); > > > > > > would also work, except of course that's the one reorder allowed by TSO. > > > > I applied this series with Peter's Acked-by, and with the above comment > > Thanks! > > > reading as follows: > > > > +(* > > + * Result: Never > > + * > > + * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, all accesses > > + * in the first must execute before any accesses in the second, even if the > > + * critical sections are protected by different locks. The one exception > > + * to this rule is that (consistent with TSO) a prior write can be reordered > > + * with a later read from the viewpoint of a process not holding both locks. > > Just want to be accurate, in our memory model "execute" means a CPU > commit an memory access instruction to the Memory Subsystem, so if we > have a store W and a load R, where W executes before R, it doesn't mean > the memory effect of W is observed before the memory effect of R by > other CPUs, consider the following case > > > CPU0 Memory Subsystem CPU1 > ==== ==== > WRITE_ONCE(*x,1); // W ---------->| > spin_unlock(s); | > spin_lock(t); | > r1 = READ_ONCE(*y); // R -------->| > // R reads 0 | > |<----------------WRITR_ONCE(*y, 1); // W' > W' propagates to CPU0 | > <-------------------------| > | smp_mb(); > |<----------------r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); // R' reads 0 > | > | W progrates to CPU 1 > |-----------------> > > The "->" from CPU0 to the Memory Subsystem shows that W executes before > R, however the memory effect of a store can be observed only after the > Memory Subsystem propagates it to another CPU, as a result CPU1 doesn't > observe W before R is executed. So the original version of the comments > is correct in our memory model terminology, at least that's how I > understand it, Alan can correct me if I'm wrong. Indeed, that is correct. It is an unfortunate inconsistency with the terminology in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt. I suspect most people think of a write as executing when it is observed by another CPU, even though that really isn't a coherent concept. (For example, it could easily lead somebody to think that a write observed at different times by different CPUs has executed more than once!) > Maybe it's better to replace the sentence starting with "The one > exception..." into: > > One thing to notice is that even though a write executes by a read, the > memory effects can still be reordered from the viewpoint of a process > not holding both locks, similar to TSO ordering. > > Thoughts? Or more briefly: Note: Even when a write executes before a read, their memory effects can be reordered from the viewpoint of another CPU (the kind of reordering allowed by TSO). Alan > Apologies for responsing late... > > ("Memory Subsystem" is an abstraction in our memory model, which doesn't > mean hardware implements things in the same way.). > > Regards, > Boqun > > > + *) > > > > Thank you all! > > > > Thanx, Paul