| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
tools/memory-model: simple.txt: Fix stale reference to recipes-pairs.txt There has never been recipes-paris.txt at least since v5.11. Fix the typo. Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> | 1 年前 | |
tools/memory-model: Keep assembly-language litmus tests This commit retains the assembly-language litmus tests generated from the C-language litmus tests, appending the hardware tag to the original C-language litmus test's filename. Thus, S+poonceonces.litmus.AArch64 contains the Armv8 assembly language corresponding to the C-language S+poonceonces.litmus test. This commit also updates the .gitignore to avoid committing these automatically generated assembly-language litmus tests. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> | 3 年前 | |
tools/memory-model: Document LKMM test procedure This commit documents how to run the various scripts in order to test a potentially pervasive change to the memory model. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> | 3 年前 | |
.gitignore: add SPDX License Identifier Add SPDX License Identifier to all .gitignore files. Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> | 6 年前 | |
tools/memory-model/README: Update klitmus7 compat table 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> | 4 年前 | |
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 <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> | 3 年前 | |
tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po 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> | 3 年前 | |
Automate memory-barriers.txt; provide Linux-kernel memory model There is some reason to believe that Documentation/memory-barriers.txt could use some help, and a major purpose of this patch is to provide that help in the form of a design-time tool that can produce all valid executions of a small fragment of concurrent Linux-kernel code, which is called a "litmus test". This tool's functionality is roughly similar to a full state-space search. Please note that this is a design-time tool, not useful for regression testing. However, we hope that the underlying Linux-kernel memory model will be incorporated into other tools capable of analyzing large bodies of code for regression-testing purposes. The main tool is herd7, together with the linux-kernel.bell, linux-kernel.cat, linux-kernel.cfg, linux-kernel.def, and lock.cat files added by this patch. The herd7 executable takes the other files as input, and all of these files collectively define the Linux-kernel memory memory model. A brief description of each of these other files is provided in the README file. Although this tool does have its limitations, which are documented in the README file, it does improve on the version reported on in the LWN series (https://lwn.net/Articles/718628/ and https://lwn.net/Articles/720550/) by supporting locking and arithmetic, including a much wider variety of read-modify-write atomic operations. Please note that herd7 is not part of this submission, but is freely available from http://diy.inria.fr/sources/index.html (and via "git" at https://github.com/herd/herdtools7). A second tool is klitmus7, which converts litmus tests to loadable kernel modules for direct testing. As with herd7, the klitmus7 code is freely available from http://diy.inria.fr/sources/index.html (and via "git" at https://github.com/herd/herdtools7). Of course, litmus tests are not always the best way to fully understand a memory model, so this patch also includes Documentation/explanation.txt, which describes the memory model in detail. In addition, Documentation/recipes.txt provides example known-good and known-bad use cases for those who prefer working by example. This patch also includes a few sample litmus tests, and a great many more litmus tests are available at https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus. This patch was the result of a most excellent collaboration founded by Jade Alglave and also including Alan Stern, Andrea Parri, and Luc Maranget. For more details on the history of this collaboration, please refer to the Linux-kernel memory model presentations at 2016 LinuxCon EU, 2016 Kernel Summit, 2016 Linux Plumbers Conference, 2017 linux.conf.au, or 2017 Linux Plumbers Conference microconference. However, one aspect of the history does bear repeating due to weak copyright tracking earlier in this project, which extends back to early 2015. This weakness came to light in late 2017 after an LKMM presentation by Paul in which an audience member noted the similarity of some LKMM code to code in early published papers. This prompted a copyright review. From Alan Stern: To say that the model was mine is not entirely accurate. Pieces of it (especially the Scpv and Atomic axioms) were taken directly from Jade's models. And of course the Happens-before and Propagation relations and axioms were heavily based on Jade and Luc's work, even though they weren't identical to the earlier versions. Only the RCU portion was completely original. . . . One can make a much better case that I wrote the bulk of lock.cat. However, it was inspired by Luc's earlier version (and still shares some elements in common), and of course it benefited from feedback and testing from all members of our group. The model prior to Alan's was Luc Maranget's. From Luc: I totally agree on Alan Stern's account of the linux kernel model genesis. I thank him for his acknowledgments of my participation to previous model drafts. I'd like to complete Alan Stern's statement: any bell cat code I have written has its roots in discussions with Jade Alglave and Paul McKenney. Moreover I have borrowed cat and bell code written by Jade Alglave freely. This copyright review therefore resulted in late adds to the copyright statements of several files. Discussion of v1 has raised several issues, which we do not believe should block acceptance given that this level of change will be ongoing, just as it has been with memory-barriers.txt: o Under what conditions should ordering provided by pure locking be seen by CPUs not holding the relevant lock(s)? In particular, should the message-passing pattern be forbidden? o Should examples involving C11 release sequences be forbidden? Note that this C11 is still a moving target for this issue: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0735r0.html o Some details of the handling of internal dependencies for atomic read-modify-write atomic operations are still subject to debate. o Changes recently accepted into mainline greatly reduce the need to handle DEC Alpha as a special case. These changes add an smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE(), thus causing Alpha to respect ordering of dependent reads. If these changes stick, the memory model can be simplified accordingly. o Will changes be required to accommodate RISC-V? Differences from v1: (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171113184031.GA26302@linux.vnet.ibm.com) o Add SPDX notations to .bell and .cat files, replacing textual license statements. o Add reference to upcoming ASPLOS paper to .bell and .cat files. o Updated identifier names in .bell and .cat files to match those used in the ASPLOS paper. o Updates to READMEs and other documentation based on review feedback. o Added a memory-ordering cheatsheet. o Update sigs to new Co-Developed-by and add acks and reviewed-bys. o Simplify rules detecting nested RCU read-side critical sections. o Update copyright statements as noted above. Co-Developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Co-Developed-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Co-Developed-by: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Co-Developed-by: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Co-Developed-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Signed-off-by: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> Signed-off-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Acked-by: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Acked-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> Cc: <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org> | 8 年前 | |
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 <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> | 3 年前 | |
tools/memory-model: Code reorganization in lock.cat Code reorganization for the lock.cat file in tools/memory-model: Improve the efficiency by ruling out right at the start RU events (spin_is_locked() calls that return False) inside a critical section for the same lock. Improve the organization of the code for handling LF and RU events by pulling the definitions of the pair-to-relation macro out from two different complicated compound expressions, using a single standalone definition instead. Rewrite the calculations of the rf relation for LF and RU events, for greater clarity. Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Tested-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> | 2 年前 |
| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 6 年前 | ||
| 4 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 8 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 2 年前 |