From 614e40faf5ae30113f94b00106ce690602f10fc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alan Stern Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 15:21:42 -0500 Subject: tools/memory-model: Provide exact SRCU semantics 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 Signed-off-by: Alan Stern Reviewed-by: Jonas Oberhauser Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell | 17 +++++------------ tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def | 6 ++++-- tools/memory-model/lock.cat | 6 +++--- 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell index b92fdf7f6eeb..ce068700939c 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell @@ -58,20 +58,13 @@ flag ~empty Rcu-lock \ domain(rcu-rscs) as unmatched-rcu-lock flag ~empty Rcu-unlock \ range(rcu-rscs) as unmatched-rcu-unlock (* Compute matching pairs of nested Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *) -let srcu-rscs = let rec - unmatched-locks = Srcu-lock \ domain(matched) - and unmatched-unlocks = Srcu-unlock \ range(matched) - and unmatched = unmatched-locks | unmatched-unlocks - and unmatched-po = ([unmatched] ; po ; [unmatched]) & loc - and unmatched-locks-to-unlocks = - ([unmatched-locks] ; po ; [unmatched-unlocks]) & loc - and matched = matched | (unmatched-locks-to-unlocks \ - (unmatched-po ; unmatched-po)) - in matched +let carry-srcu-data = (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rf)* +let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; carry-srcu-data ; data ; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc (* Validate nesting *) flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unmatched-srcu-lock flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unmatched-srcu-unlock +flag ~empty (srcu-rscs^-1 ; srcu-rscs) \ id as multiple-srcu-matches (* Check for use of synchronize_srcu() inside an RCU critical section *) flag ~empty rcu-rscs & (po ; [Sync-srcu] ; po) as invalid-sleep @@ -81,11 +74,11 @@ flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as srcu-bad-value-match (* Compute marked and plain memory accesses *) let Marked = (~M) | IW | Once | Release | Acquire | domain(rmw) | range(rmw) | - LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU + LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RL | RU | Srcu-lock | Srcu-unlock let Plain = M \ Marked (* Redefine dependencies to include those carried through plain accesses *) -let carry-dep = (data ; rfi)* +let carry-dep = (data ; [~ Srcu-unlock] ; rfi)* let addr = carry-dep ; addr let ctrl = carry-dep ; ctrl let data = carry-dep ; data diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def index a6b6fbc9d0b2..88a39601f525 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def @@ -50,8 +50,10 @@ synchronize_rcu() { __fence{sync-rcu}; } synchronize_rcu_expedited() { __fence{sync-rcu}; } // SRCU -srcu_read_lock(X) __srcu{srcu-lock}(X) -srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __srcu{srcu-unlock}(X,Y); } +srcu_read_lock(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X) +srcu_read_unlock(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); } +srcu_down_read(X) __load{srcu-lock}(*X) +srcu_up_read(X,Y) { __store{srcu-unlock}(*X,Y); } synchronize_srcu(X) { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); } synchronize_srcu_expedited(X) { __srcu{sync-srcu}(X); } diff --git a/tools/memory-model/lock.cat b/tools/memory-model/lock.cat index 6b52f365d73a..53b5a492739d 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/lock.cat +++ b/tools/memory-model/lock.cat @@ -36,9 +36,9 @@ let RU = try RU with emptyset (* Treat RL as a kind of LF: a read with no ordering properties *) let LF = LF | RL -(* There should be no ordinary R or W accesses to spinlocks *) -let ALL-LOCKS = LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RU -flag ~empty [M \ IW] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as mixed-lock-accesses +(* There should be no ordinary R or W accesses to spinlocks or SRCU structs *) +let ALL-LOCKS = LKR | LKW | UL | LF | RU | Srcu-lock | Srcu-unlock | Sync-srcu +flag ~empty [M \ IW \ ALL-LOCKS] ; loc ; [ALL-LOCKS] as mixed-lock-accesses (* Link Lock-Reads to their RMW-partner Lock-Writes *) let lk-rmw = ([LKR] ; po-loc ; [LKW]) \ (po ; po) -- cgit v1.2.3