summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/memory-model
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2023-03-24tools/memory-model: Fix paulmck email address on pre-existing scriptsPaul E. McKenney
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-24tools/memory-model: Make judgelitmus.sh detect hard deadlocksPaul E. McKenney
If a litmus test specifies "Result: Never" and if it contains an unconditional ("hard") deadlock, then running checklitmus.sh on it will not flag any errors, despite the fact that there are no executions. This commit therefore updates judgelitmus.sh to complain about tests with no executions that are marked, but not as "Result: DEADLOCK". Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-24tools/memory-model: Make judgelitmus.sh identify bad macrosPaul E. McKenney
Currently, judgelitmus.sh treats use of unknown primitives (such as srcu_read_lock() prior to SRCU support) as "!!! Verification error". This can be misleading because it fails to call out typos and running a version LKMM on a litmus test requiring a feature not provided by that version. This commit therefore changes judgelitmus.sh to check for unknown primitives and to report them, for example, with: '!!! Current LKMM version does not know "rcu_write_lock"'. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-24tools/memory-model: Make cmplitmushist.sh note timeoutsPaul E. McKenney
Currently, cmplitmushist.sh treats timeouts (as in the "--timeout" argument) as "Missing Observation line". This can be misleading because it is quite possible that running the test longer would have produced a verification. This commit therefore changes cmplitmushist.sh to check for timeouts and to report them with "Timed out". Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-24tools/memory-model: Make judgelitmus.sh note timeoutsPaul E. McKenney
Currently, judgelitmus.sh treats timeouts (as in the "--timeout" argument) as "!!! Verification error". This can be misleading because it is quite possible that running the test longer would have produced a verification. This commit therefore changes judgelitmus.sh to check for timeouts and to report them with "!!! Timeout". Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-24tools/memory-model: Document locking corner casesPaul E. McKenney
Most Linux-kernel uses of locking are straightforward, but there are corner-case uses that rely on less well-known aspects of the lock and unlock primitives. This commit therefore adds a locking.txt and litmus tests in Documentation/litmus-tests/locking to explain these corner-case uses. [ paulmck: Apply Andrea Parri feedback for klitmus7. ] [ paulmck: Apply Akira Yokosawa example-consistency feedback. ] Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-22tools/memory-model: Add documentation about SRCU read-side critical sectionsAlan Stern
Expand the discussion of SRCU and its read-side critical sections in the Linux Kernel Memory Model documentation file explanation.txt. The new material discusses recent changes to the memory model made in commit 6cd244c87428 ("tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU semantics"). Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Co-developed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Cc: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> CC: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-22tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of poJonas Oberhauser
As stated in the documentation and implied by its name, the ppo (preserved program order) relation is intended to link po-earlier to po-later instructions under certain conditions. However, a corner case currently allows instructions to be linked by ppo that are not executed by the same thread, i.e., instructions are being linked that have no po relation. This happens due to the mb/strong-fence/fence relations, which (as one case) provide order when locks are passed between threads followed by an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() fence. This is illustrated in the following litmus test (as can be seen when using herd7 with `doshow ppo`): P0(spinlock_t *x, spinlock_t *y) { spin_lock(x); spin_unlock(x); } P1(spinlock_t *x, spinlock_t *y) { spin_lock(x); smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(); *y = 1; } The ppo relation will link P0's spin_lock(x) and P1's *y=1, because P0 passes a lock to P1 which then uses this fence. The patch makes ppo a subrelation of po by letting fence contribute to ppo only in case the fence links events of the same thread. Signed-off-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-22tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU semanticsAlan Stern
LKMM has long provided only approximate handling of SRCU read-side critical sections. This has not been a pressing problem because LKMM's traditional handling is correct for the common cases of non-overlapping and properly nested critical sections. However, LKMM's traditional handling of partially overlapping critical sections incorrectly fuses them into one large critical section. For example, consider the following litmus test: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ C C-srcu-nest-5 (* * Result: Sometimes * * This demonstrates non-nested overlapping of SRCU read-side critical * sections. Unlike RCU, SRCU critical sections do not unconditionally * nest. *) {} P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1) { int r1; int r2; int r3; int r4; r3 = srcu_read_lock(s1); r2 = READ_ONCE(*y); r4 = srcu_read_lock(s1); srcu_read_unlock(s1, r3); r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); srcu_read_unlock(s1, r4); } P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1) { WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); synchronize_srcu(s1); WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); } locations [0:r1] exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current mainline incorrectly flattens the two critical sections into one larger critical section, giving "Never" instead of the correct "Sometimes": ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg C-srcu-nest-5.litmus Test C-srcu-nest-5 Allowed States 3 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0; 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 0:r1=1; 0:r2=1; No Witnesses Positive: 0 Negative: 3 Flag srcu-bad-nesting Condition exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0) Observation C-srcu-nest-5 Never 0 3 Time C-srcu-nest-5 0.01 Hash=e692c106cf3e84e20f12991dc438ff1b ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To its credit, it does complain about bad nesting. But with this commit we get the following result, which has the virtue of being correct: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg C-srcu-nest-5.litmus Test C-srcu-nest-5 Allowed States 4 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0; 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 0:r1=1; 0:r2=0; 0:r1=1; 0:r2=1; Ok Witnesses Positive: 1 Negative: 3 Condition exists (0:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0) Observation C-srcu-nest-5 Sometimes 1 3 Time C-srcu-nest-5 0.05 Hash=e692c106cf3e84e20f12991dc438ff1b ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, there are new srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read() functions on their way to mainline. Roughly speaking, these are to srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() as down() and up() are to mutex_lock() and mutex_unlock(). The key point is that srcu_down_read() can execute in one process and the matching srcu_up_read() in another, as shown in this litmus test: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ C C-srcu-nest-6 (* * Result: Never * * This would be valid for srcu_down_read() and srcu_up_read(). *) {} P0(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx, int *f) { int r2; int r3; r3 = srcu_down_read(s1); WRITE_ONCE(*idx, r3); r2 = READ_ONCE(*y); smp_store_release(f, 1); } P1(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1, int *idx, int *f) { int r1; int r3; int r4; r4 = smp_load_acquire(f); r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); r3 = READ_ONCE(*idx); srcu_up_read(s1, r3); } P2(int *x, int *y, struct srcu_struct *s1) { WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); synchronize_srcu(s1); WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); } locations [0:r1] filter (1:r4=1) exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When run on current mainline, this litmus test gets a complaint about an unknown macro srcu_down_read(). With this commit: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg C-srcu-nest-6.litmus Test C-srcu-nest-6 Allowed States 3 0:r1=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r1=0; 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=0; 0:r1=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r1=1; No Witnesses Positive: 0 Negative: 3 Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ 0:r2=0) Observation C-srcu-nest-6 Never 0 3 Time C-srcu-nest-6 0.02 Hash=c1f20257d052ca5e899be508bedcb2a1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note that the user must supply the flag "f" and the "filter" clause, similar to what must be done to emulate call_rcu(). The commit works by treating srcu_read_lock()/srcu_down_read() as loads and srcu_read_unlock()/srcu_up_read() as stores. This allows us to determine which unlock matches which lock by looking for a data dependency between them. In order for this to work properly, the data dependencies have to be tracked through stores to intermediate variables such as "idx" in the litmus test above; this is handled by the new carry-srcu-data relation. But it's important here (and in the existing carry-dep relation) to avoid tracking the dependencies through SRCU unlock stores. Otherwise, in situations resembling: A: r1 = srcu_read_lock(s); B: srcu_read_unlock(s, r1); C: r2 = srcu_read_lock(s); D: srcu_read_unlock(s, r2); it would look as if D was dependent on both A and C, because "s" would appear to be an intermediate variable written by B and read by C. This explains the complications in the definitions of carry-srcu-dep and carry-dep. As a debugging aid, the commit adds a check for errors in which the value returned by one call to srcu_read_lock()/srcu_down_read() is passed to more than one instance of srcu_read_unlock()/srcu_up_read(). Finally, since these SRCU-related primitives are now treated as ordinary reads and writes, we have to add them into the lists of marked accesses (i.e., not subject to data races) and lock-related accesses (i.e., one shouldn't try to access an srcu_struct with a non-lock-related primitive such as READ_ONCE() or a plain write). Portions of this approach were suggested by Boqun Feng and Jonas Oberhauser. [ paulmck: Fix space-before-tab whitespace nit. ] Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-22tools/memory-model: Restrict to-r to read-read address dependencyJoel Fernandes (Google)
During a code-reading exercise of linux-kernel.cat CAT file, I generated a graph to show the to-r relations. While likely not problematic for the model, I found it confusing that a read-write address dependency would show as a to-r edge on the graph. This patch therefore restricts the to-r links derived from addr to only read-read address dependencies, so that read-write address dependencies don't show as to-r in the graphs. This should also prevent future users of to-r from deriving incorrect relations. Note that a read-write address dep, obviously, still ends up in the ppo relation via the to-w relation. I verified that a read-read address dependency still shows up as a to-r link in the graph, as it did before. For reference, the problematic graph was generated with the following command: herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg \ -doshow dep -doshow to-r -doshow to-w ./foo.litmus -show all -o OUT/ Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-22tools/memory-model: Add smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock()Paul E. McKenney
This commit adds support for smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock(), which, when combined with a prior srcu_read_unlock(), implies a full memory barrier. No ordering is guaranteed to accesses between the two, and placing accesses between is bad practice in any case. Tests may be found at https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus in files matching manual/kernel/C-srcu-mb-*.litmus. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-22tools/memory-model: Unify UNLOCK+LOCK pairings to po-unlock-lock-poJonas Oberhauser
LKMM uses two relations for talking about UNLOCK+LOCK pairings: 1) po-unlock-lock-po, which handles UNLOCK+LOCK pairings on the same CPU or immediate lock handovers on the same lock variable 2) po;[UL];(co|po);[LKW];po, which handles UNLOCK+LOCK pairs literally as described in rcupdate.h#L1002, i.e., even after a sequence of handovers on the same lock variable. The latter relation is used only once, to provide the guarantee defined in rcupdate.h#L1002 by smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which makes any UNLOCK+LOCK pair followed by the fence behave like a full barrier. This patch drops this use in favor of using po-unlock-lock-po everywhere, which unifies the way the model talks about UNLOCK+LOCK pairings. At first glance this seems to weaken the guarantee given by LKMM: When considering a long sequence of lock handovers such as below, where P0 hands the lock to P1, which hands it to P2, which finally executes such an after_unlock_lock fence, the mb relation currently links any stores in the critical section of P0 to instructions P2 executes after its fence, but not so after the patch. P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *mylock) { spin_lock(mylock); WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2); spin_unlock(mylock); WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); } P1(int *y, int *z, spinlock_t *mylock) { int r0 = READ_ONCE(*y); // reads 1 spin_lock(mylock); spin_unlock(mylock); WRITE_ONCE(*z,1); } P2(int *z, int *d, spinlock_t *mylock) { int r1 = READ_ONCE(*z); // reads 1 spin_lock(mylock); spin_unlock(mylock); smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(); WRITE_ONCE(*d,1); } P3(int *x, int *d) { WRITE_ONCE(*d,2); smp_mb(); WRITE_ONCE(*x,1); } exists (1:r0=1 /\ 2:r1=1 /\ x=2 /\ d=2) Nevertheless, the ordering guarantee given in rcupdate.h is actually not weakened. This is because the unlock operations along the sequence of handovers are A-cumulative fences. They ensure that any stores that propagate to the CPU performing the first unlock operation in the sequence must also propagate to every CPU that performs a subsequent lock operation in the sequence. Therefore any such stores will also be ordered correctly by the fence even if only the final handover is considered a full barrier. Indeed this patch does not affect the behaviors allowed by LKMM at all. The mb relation is used to define ordering through: 1) mb/.../ppo/hb, where the ordering is subsumed by hb+ where the lock-release, rfe, and unlock-acquire orderings each provide hb 2) mb/strong-fence/cumul-fence/prop, where the rfe and A-cumulative lock-release orderings simply add more fine-grained cumul-fence edges to substitute a single strong-fence edge provided by a long lock handover sequence 3) mb/strong-fence/pb and various similar uses in the definition of data races, where as discussed above any long handover sequence can be turned into a sequence of cumul-fence edges that provide the same ordering. Signed-off-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com> Reviewed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-03-22tools/memory-model: Update some warning labelsAlan Stern
Some of the warning labels used in the LKMM are unfortunately ambiguous. In particular, the same warning is used for both an unmatched rcu_read_lock() call and for an unmatched rcu_read_unlock() call. Likewise for the srcu_* equivalents. Also, the warning about passing a wrong value to srcu_read_unlock() -- i.e., a value different from the one returned by the matching srcu_read_lock() -- talks about bad nesting rather than non-matching values. Let's update the warning labels to make their meanings more clear. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-01-03tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry dependenciesJonas Oberhauser
As reported by Viktor, plain accesses in LKMM are weaker than accesses to registers: the latter carry dependencies but the former do not. This is exemplified in the following snippet: int r = READ_ONCE(*x); WRITE_ONCE(*y, r); Here a data dependency links the READ_ONCE() to the WRITE_ONCE(), preserving their order, because the model treats r as a register. If r is turned into a memory location accessed by plain accesses, however, the link is broken and the order between READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() is no longer preserved. This is too conservative, since any optimizations on plain accesses that might break dependencies are also possible on registers; it also contradicts the intuitive notion of "dependency" as the data stored by the WRITE_ONCE() does depend on the data read by the READ_ONCE(), independently of whether r is a register or a memory location. This is resolved by redefining all dependencies to include dependencies carried by memory accesses; a dependency is said to be carried by memory accesses (in the model: carry-dep) from one load to another load if the initial load is followed by an arbitrarily long sequence alternating between stores and loads of the same thread, where the data of each store depends on the previous load, and is read by the next load. Any dependency linking the final load in the sequence to another access also links the initial load in the sequence to that access. More deep details can be found in this LKML discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d86295788ad14a02874ab030ddb8a6f8@huawei.com/ Reported-by: Viktor Vafeiadis <viktor@mpi-sws.org> Signed-off-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com> Reviewed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2023-01-03tools: memory-model: Add rmw-sequences to the LKMMAlan Stern
Viktor (as relayed by Jonas) has pointed out a weakness in the Linux Kernel Memory Model. Namely, the memory ordering properties of atomic operations are not monotonic: An atomic op with full-barrier semantics does not always provide ordering as strong as one with release-barrier semantics. The following litmus test illustrates the problem: -------------------------------------------------- C atomics-not-monotonic {} P0(int *x, atomic_t *y) { WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); smp_wmb(); atomic_set(y, 1); } P1(atomic_t *y) { int r1; r1 = atomic_inc_return(y); } P2(int *x, atomic_t *y) { int r2; int r3; r2 = atomic_read(y); smp_rmb(); r3 = READ_ONCE(*x); } exists (2:r2=2 /\ 2:r3=0) -------------------------------------------------- The litmus test is allowed as shown with atomic_inc_return(), which has full-barrier semantics. But if the operation is changed to atomic_inc_return_release(), which only has release-barrier semantics, the litmus test is forbidden. Clearly this violates monotonicity. The reason is because the LKMM treats full-barrier atomic ops as if they were written: mb(); load(); store(); mb(); (where the load() and store() are the two parts of an atomic RMW op), whereas it treats release-barrier atomic ops as if they were written: load(); release_barrier(); store(); The difference is that here the release barrier orders the load part of the atomic op before the store part with A-cumulativity, whereas the mb()'s above do not. This means that release-barrier atomics can effectively extend the cumul-fence relation but full-barrier atomics cannot. To resolve this problem we introduce the rmw-sequence relation, representing an arbitrarily long sequence of atomic RMW operations in which each operation reads from the previous one, and explicitly allow it to extend cumul-fence. This modification of the memory model is sound; it holds for PPC because of B-cumulativity, it holds for TSO and ARM64 because of other-multicopy atomicity, and we can assume that atomic ops on all other architectures will be implemented so as to make it hold for them. For similar reasons we also allow rmw-sequence to extend the w-post-bounded relation, which is analogous to cumul-fence in some ways. Reported-by: Viktor Vafeiadis <viktor@mpi-sws.org> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2022-10-18tools/memory-model: Weaken ctrl dependency definition in explanation.txtPaul Heidekrüger
The current informal control dependency definition in explanation.txt is too broad and, as discussed, needs to be updated. Consider the following example: > if(READ_ONCE(x)) > return 42; > > WRITE_ONCE(y, 42); > > return 21; The read event determines whether the write event will be executed "at all" - as per the current definition - but the formal LKMM does not recognize this as a control dependency. Introduce a new definition which includes the requirement for the second memory access event to syntactically lie within the arm of a non-loop conditional. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220615114330.2573952-1-paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de/ Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> Cc: Charalampos Mainas <charalampos.mainas@gmail.com> Cc: Pramod Bhatotia <pramod.bhatotia@in.tum.de> Cc: Soham Chakraborty <s.s.chakraborty@tudelft.nl> Cc: Martin Fink <martin.fink@in.tum.de> Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2022-08-31tools/memory-model: Clarify LKMM's limitations in litmus-tests.txtPaul Heidekrüger
As discussed, clarify LKMM not recognizing certain kinds of orderings. In particular, highlight the fact that LKMM might deliberately make weaker guarantees than compilers and architectures. [ paulmck: Fix whitespace issue noted by checkpatch.pl. ] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YpoW1deb%2FQeeszO1@ethstick13.dse.in.tum.de/T/#u Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Cc: Charalampos Mainas <charalampos.mainas@gmail.com> Cc: Pramod Bhatotia <pramod.bhatotia@in.tum.de> Cc: Soham Chakraborty <s.s.chakraborty@tudelft.nl> Cc: Martin Fink <martin.fink@in.tum.de> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2022-05-03tools/memory-model/README: Update klitmus7 compat tableAkira Yokosawa
EXPORT_SYMBOL of do_exec() was removed in v5.17. Unfortunately, kernel modules from klitmus7 7.56 have do_exec() at the end of each kthread. herdtools7 7.56.1 has addressed the issue. Update the compatibility table accordingly. Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.17+ Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2022-02-01tools/memory-model: Explain syntactic and semantic dependenciesAlan Stern
Paul Heidekrüger pointed out that the Linux Kernel Memory Model documentation doesn't mention the distinction between syntactic and semantic dependencies. This is an important difference, because the compiler can easily break dependencies that are only syntactic, not semantic. This patch adds a few paragraphs to the LKMM documentation explaining these issues and illustrating how they can matter. Suggested-by: Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@in.tum.de> Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-11-30tools/memory-model: litmus: Add two tests for unlock(A)+lock(B) orderingBoqun Feng
The memory model has been updated to provide a stronger ordering guarantee for unlock(A)+lock(B) on the same CPU/thread. Therefore add two litmus tests describing this new guarantee, these tests are simple yet can clearly show the usage of the new guarantee, also they can serve as the self tests for the modification in the model. Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-11-30tools/memory-model: doc: Describe the requirement of the litmus-tests directoryBoqun Feng
It's better that we have some "standard" about which test should be put in the litmus-tests directory because it helps future contributors understand whether they should work on litmus-tests in kernel or Paul's GitHub repo. Therefore explain a little bit on what a "representative" litmus test is. Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-11-30tools/memory-model: Provide extra ordering for unlock+lock pair on the same CPUBoqun Feng
A recent discussion[1] shows that we are in favor of strengthening the ordering of unlock + lock on the same CPU: a unlock and a po-after lock should provide the so-called RCtso ordering, that is a memory access S po-before the unlock should be ordered against a memory access R po-after the lock, unless S is a store and R is a load. The strengthening meets programmers' expection that "sequence of two locked regions to be ordered wrt each other" (from Linus), and can reduce the mental burden when using locks. Therefore add it in LKMM. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210909185937.GA12379@rowland.harvard.edu/ Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc) Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com> (RISC-V) Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-07-27tools/memory-model: Document data_race(READ_ONCE())Paul E. McKenney
It is possible to cause KCSAN to ignore marked accesses by applying __no_kcsan to the function or applying data_race() to the marked accesses. These approaches allow the developer to restrict compiler optimizations while also causing KCSAN to ignore diagnostic accesses. This commit therefore updates the documentation accordingly. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-07-27tools/memory-model: Heuristics using data_race() must handle all valuesManfred Spraul
Data loaded for use by some sorts of heuristics can tolerate the occasional erroneous value. In this case the loads may use data_race() to give the compiler full freedom to optimize while also informing KCSAN of the intent. However, for this to work, the heuristic needs to be able to tolerate any erroneous value that could possibly arise. This commit therefore adds a paragraph spelling this out. Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-07-27tools/memory-model: Add example for heuristic lockless readsPaul E. McKenney
This commit adds example code for heuristic lockless reads, based loosely on the sem_lock() and sem_unlock() functions. [ paulmck: Apply Alan Stern and Manfred Spraul feedback. ] Reported-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> [ paulmck: Update per Manfred Spraul and Hillf Danton feedback. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-07-20tools/memory-model: Make read_foo_diagnostic() more clearly diagnosticPaul E. McKenney
The current definition of read_foo_diagnostic() in the "Lock Protection With Lockless Diagnostic Access" section returns a value, which could be use for any purpose. This could mislead people into incorrectly using data_race() in cases where READ_ONCE() is required. This commit therefore makes read_foo_diagnostic() simply print the value read. Reported-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-05-10tools/memory-model: Fix smp_mb__after_spinlock() spellingBjörn Töpel
A misspelled git-grep regex revealed that smp_mb__after_spinlock() was misspelled in explanation.txt. This commit adds the missing "_". Fixes: 1c27b644c0fd ("Automate memory-barriers.txt; provide Linux-kernel memory model") [ paulmck: Apply Alan Stern commit-log feedback. ] Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-03-15tools/memory-model: Add access-marking documentationPaul E. McKenney
This commit adapts the "Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 2)" LWN article (https://lwn.net/Articles/816854/) to kernel-documentation form. This allows more easily updating the material as needed. Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> [ paulmck: Apply Marco Elver feedback. ] [ paulmck: Update per Akira Yokosawa feedback. ] Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-03-08tools/memory-model: Remove reference to atomic_ops.rstAkira Yokosawa
atomic_ops.rst was removed by commit f0400a77ebdc ("atomic: Delete obsolete documentation"). Remove the broken link in tools/memory-model/Documentation/simple.txt. Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-03-08doc: Update rcu_dereference.rst referenceMauro Carvalho Chehab
Changeset b00aedf978aa ("doc: Convert to rcu_dereference.txt to rcu_dereference.rst") renamed: Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt to: Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst. Update its cross-reference accordingly. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-01-04tools/memory-model: Fix typo in klitmus7 compatibility tableAkira Yokosawa
klitmus7 of herdtools7 7.48 or earlier depends on ACCESS_ONCE(), which was removed in Linux v4.15. Fix the obvious typo in the table. Fixes: d075a78a5ab1 ("tools/memory-model/README: Expand dependency of klitmus7") Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-01-04tools/memory-model: Remove redundant initialization in litmus testsAkira Yokosawa
This is a revert of commit 1947bfcf81a9 ("tools/memory-model: Add types to litmus tests") with conflict resolutions. klitmus7 [1] is aware of default types of "int" and "int*". It accepts litmus tests for herd7 without extra type info unless non-"int" variables are referenced by an "exists", "locations", or "filter" directive. [1]: Tested with klitmus7 versions 7.49 or later. Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2021-01-04tools/memory-model: Tie acquire loads to reads-fromPaul E. McKenney
This commit explicitly makes the connection between acquire loads and the reads-from relation. It also adds an entry for happens-before, and refers to the corresponding section of explanation.txt. Reported-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-11-06tools/memory-model: Label MP tests' producers and consumersPaul E. McKenney
This commit adds comments that label the MP tests' producer and consumer processes, and also that label the "exists" clause as the bad outcome. Reported-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-11-06tools/memory-model: Use "buf" and "flag" for message-passing testsPaul E. McKenney
The use of "x" and "y" for message-passing tests is fine for people familiar with memory models and litmus-test nomenclature, but is a bit obtuse for others. This commit therefore substitutes "buf" for "x" and "flag" for "y" for the MP tests. There are a few special-case MP tests that use locks and these are unchanged. There is another MP test that uses pointers, and this is changed to name the pointer "p". Reported-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-11-06tools/memory-model: Add types to litmus testsPaul E. McKenney
This commit adds type information for global variables in the litmus tests in order to allow easier use with klitmus7. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-11-06tools/memory-model: Add a glossary of LKMM termsPaul E. McKenney
[ paulmck: Apply Alan Stern feedback. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-11-06tools/memory-model: Document categories of ordering primitivesPaul E. McKenney
The Linux kernel has a number of categories of ordering primitives, which are recorded in the LKMM implementation and hinted at by cheatsheet.txt. But there is no overview of these categories, and such an overview is needed in order to understand multithreaded LKMM litmus tests. This commit therefore adds an ordering.txt as well as extracting a control-dependencies.txt from memory-barriers.txt. It also updates the README file. [ paulmck: Apply Akira Yokosawa file-placement feedback. ] [ paulmck: Apply Alan Stern feedback. ] [ paulmck: Apply self-review feedback. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-10-26tools/memory-model: Move Documentation description to Documentation/READMEPaul E. McKenney
This commit moves the descriptions of the files residing in tools/memory-model/Documentation to a README file in that directory, leaving behind the description of tools/memory-model/Documentation/README itself. After this change, tools/memory-model/Documentation/README provides a guide to the files in the tools/memory-model/Documentation directory, guiding people with different skills and needs to the most appropriate starting point. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-10-26tools: memory-model: Document that the LKMM can easily miss control dependenciesAlan Stern
Add a small section to the litmus-tests.txt documentation file for the Linux Kernel Memory Model explaining that the memory model often fails to recognize certain control dependencies. Suggested-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-09-04tools/memory-model: Expand the cheatsheet.txt notion of relaxedPaul E. McKenney
This commit adds a key entry enumerating the various types of relaxed operations. While in the area, it also renames the relaxed rows. [ paulmck: Apply Boqun Feng feedback. ] Acked-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-09-03tools/memory-model: Add a simple entry point documentPaul E. McKenney
Current LKMM documentation assumes that the reader already understands concurrency in the Linux kernel, which won't necessarily always be the case. This commit supplies a simple.txt file that provides a starting point for someone who is new to concurrency in the Linux kernel. That said, this file might also useful as a reminder to experienced developers of simpler approaches to dealing with concurrency. Link: Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/827180/ [ paulmck: Apply feedback from Joel Fernandes. ] Co-developed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Co-developed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-09-03tools/memory-model: Improve litmus-test documentationPaul E. McKenney
The current LKMM documentation says very little about litmus tests, and worse yet directs people to the herd7 documentation for more information. Now, the herd7 documentation is quite voluminous and educational, but it is intended for people creating and modifying memory models, not those attempting to use them. This commit therefore updates README and creates a litmus-tests.txt file that gives an overview of litmus-test format and describes ways of modeling various special cases, illustrated with numerous examples. [ paulmck: Add Alan Stern feedback. ] [ paulmck: Apply Dave Chinner feedback. ] [ paulmck: Apply Andrii Nakryiko feedback. ] [ paulmck: Apply Johannes Weiner feedback. ] Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/827180/ Reported-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-09-03tools/memory-model: Update recipes.txt prime_numbers.c pathPaul E. McKenney
The expand_to_next_prime() and next_prime_number() functions have moved from lib/prime_numbers.c to lib/math/prime_numbers.c, so this commit updates recipes.txt to reflect this change. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-09-03Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones: LKMMAlexander A. Klimov
Rationale: Reduces attack surface on kernel devs opening the links for MITM as HTTPS traffic is much harder to manipulate. Deterministic algorithm: For each file: If not .svg: For each line: If doesn't contain `\bxmlns\b`: For each link, `\bhttp://[^# \t\r\n]*(?:\w|/)`: If both the HTTP and HTTPS versions return 200 OK and serve the same content: Replace HTTP with HTTPS. Signed-off-by: Alexander A. Klimov <grandmaster@al2klimov.de> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-08-03Merge tag 'locking-core-2020-08-03' of ↵Linus Torvalds
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip Pull locking updates from Ingo Molnar: - LKMM updates: mostly documentation changes, but also some new litmus tests for atomic ops. - KCSAN updates: the most important change is that GCC 11 now has all fixes in place to support KCSAN, so GCC support can be enabled again. Also more annotations. - futex updates: minor cleanups and simplifications - seqlock updates: merge preparatory changes/cleanups for the 'associated locks' facilities. - lockdep updates: - simplify IRQ trace event handling - add various new debug checks - simplify header dependencies, split out <linux/lockdep_types.h>, decouple lockdep from other low level headers some more - fix NMI handling - misc cleanups and smaller fixes * tag 'locking-core-2020-08-03' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: (60 commits) kcsan: Improve IRQ state trace reporting lockdep: Refactor IRQ trace events fields into struct seqlock: lockdep assert non-preemptibility on seqcount_t write lockdep: Add preemption enabled/disabled assertion APIs seqlock: Implement raw_seqcount_begin() in terms of raw_read_seqcount() seqlock: Add kernel-doc for seqcount_t and seqlock_t APIs seqlock: Reorder seqcount_t and seqlock_t API definitions seqlock: seqcount_t latch: End read sections with read_seqcount_retry() seqlock: Properly format kernel-doc code samples Documentation: locking: Describe seqlock design and usage locking/qspinlock: Do not include atomic.h from qspinlock_types.h locking/atomic: Move ATOMIC_INIT into linux/types.h lockdep: Move list.h inclusion into lockdep.h locking/lockdep: Fix TRACE_IRQFLAGS vs. NMIs futex: Remove unused or redundant includes futex: Consistently use fshared as boolean futex: Remove needless goto's futex: Remove put_futex_key() rwsem: fix commas in initialisation docs: locking: Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones ...
2020-07-21tools/memory-model: Remove smp_read_barrier_depends() from informal docWill Deacon
smp_read_barrier_depends() has gone the way of mmiowb() and so many esoteric memory barriers before it. Drop the two mentions of this deceased barrier from the LKMM informal explanation document. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
2020-06-29tools/memory-model/README: Mention herdtools7 7.56 in compatibility tableAkira Yokosawa
herdtools7 7.56 is going to be released in the week of 22 Jun 2020. This commit therefore adds the exact version in the compatibility table. Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-06-29tools/memory-model/README: Expand dependency of klitmus7Akira Yokosawa
klitmus7 is independent of the memory model but depends on the build-target kernel release. It occasionally lost compatibility due to kernel API changes [1, 2, 3]. It was remedied in a backwards-compatible manner respectively [4, 5, 6]. Reflect this fact in README. [1]: b899a850431e ("compiler.h: Remove ACCESS_ONCE()") [2]: 0bb95f80a38f ("Makefile: Globally enable VLA warning") [3]: d56c0d45f0e2 ("proc: decouple proc from VFS with "struct proc_ops"") [4]: https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/commit/e87d7f9287d1 ("klitmus: Use WRITE_ONCE and READ_ONCE in place of deprecated ACCESS_ONCE") [5]: https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/commit/a0cbb10d02be ("klitmus: Avoid variable length array") [6]: https://github.com/herd/herdtools7/commit/46b9412d3a58 ("klitmus: Linux kernel v5.6.x compat") NOTE: [5] was ahead of herdtools7 7.53, which did not make an official release. Code generated by klitmus7 without [5] can still be built targeting Linux 4.20--5.5 if you don't care VLA warnings. Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
2020-06-29tools/memory-model: Fix reference to litmus test in recipes.txtAkira Yokosawa
The name of litmus test doesn't match the one described below. Fix the name of litmus test. Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>