Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)

[Alan Stern]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 10:15:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Nevertheless, here is the resulting .bell fragment:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (* Compute matching pairs of Srcu-lock and Srcu-unlock *)
> let srcu-rscs = ([Srcu-lock] ; data ; [Srcu-unlock]) & loc
> 
> (* Validate nesting *)
> flag ~empty Srcu-lock \ domain(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking
> flag ~empty Srcu-unlock \ range(srcu-rscs) as unbalanced-srcu-locking
> 
> (* Check for use of synchronize_srcu() inside an RCU critical section *)
> flag ~empty rcu-rscs & (po ; [Sync-srcu] ; po) as invalid-sleep
> 
> (* Validate SRCU dynamic match *)
> flag ~empty different-values(srcu-rscs) as srcu-bad-nesting

I forgot to mention...  An appropriate check for one srcu_read_lock() 
matched to more than one srcu_read_unlock() would be something like 
this:

flag ~empty (srcu-rscs^-1 ; srcu-rscs) \ id as multiple-unlocks

Alan

PS: Do you agree that we should change the names of the first two flags 
above to unbalanced-srcu-lock and unbalanced-srcu-unlock, respectively 
(and similarly for the rcu checks)?  It might help to be a little more 
specific about how the locking is wrong when we detect an error.