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

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 08:50:59AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 04:03:16PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 1/26/2023 7:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:17:49PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > Note that this interpretation is analogous to the promise of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which says that an
> > > > UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full fence: here the read-side unlock+gp act as a
> > > > full memory barrier.
> > > Good point that the existing smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() can be used for
> > > any use cases relying on the more literal interpretation of this promise.
> > > We already have the work-around!  ;-)
> > 
> > Can it? I meant that the less-literal form is similar to the one given by
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().

Apologies, missed this on the first go...

I suppose that you could have a situation where the grace period ended
between the srcu_read_unlock() and the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(),
but how would software detect that?

							Thanx, Paul

> > > > [...] I suppose you might be able to write
> > > > some absurd client that inspects every store of the reader thread and sees
> > > > that there is no line in the reader side code that acts like a full fence.
> > > > But it would take a lot of effort to discern this.
> > > The usual litmus test is shown at the end of this email [...]
> > > > [...] I hope few people would have this unhealthy idea. But you
> > > > never know.
> > > Given that the more literal interpretation is not unreasonable, we should
> > > assume that someone somewhere might have interpreted it that way.
> > > 
> > > But I agree that the odds of someone actually relying on this are low,
> > > and any such use case can be fixed with smp_mb__before_srcu_read_unlock(),
> > > similar to smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock() that you note is already in use.
> > > 
> > > It would still be good to scan SRCU use for this sort of pattern, maybe
> > > manually, maybe via something like coccinelle.  Alternatively, I could
> > > post on my blog (with right of first refusal to LWN and you guys as
> > > co-authors) telling the community of our intent to change this and see
> > > what people say.  Probably both rather than either/or.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > My first thought is "there is a 'usual' litmus test for this?" :D
> > But yes, the test you have given has at least the same structure as what I
> > would expect.
> 
> Exactly!  ;-)
> 
> > Communicating this with the community sounds very reasonable.
> > 
> > For some automated combing, I'm really not sure what pattern to look for.
> > I'm afraid someone with a lot of time might have to look (semi-)manually.
> 
> Please continue giving it some thought.  The number of srcu_read_unlock()
> calls in v6.1 is about 250, which is within the realm of manual
> inspection, but it is all too easy to miss something.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > Best wishes, jonas
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > C C-srcu-observed-6
> > > 
> > > (*
> > >   * Result: Sometimes
> > >   *
> > >   * The result is Never if any of the smp_mb() calls is uncommented.
> > >   *)
> > > 
> > > {}
> > > 
> > > P0(int *a, int *b, int *c, int *d, struct srcu_struct *s)
> > > {
> > > 	int r1;
> > > 	int r2;
> > > 	int r3;
> > > 	int r4;
> > > 
> > > 	r1 = srcu_read_lock(s);
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*b, 2);
> > > 	r2 = READ_ONCE(*a);
> > > 	// smp_mb();
> > > 	srcu_read_unlock(s, r1);
> > > 	// smp_mb();
> > > 	r3 = READ_ONCE(*c);
> > > 	// smp_mb();
> > > 	r4 = READ_ONCE(*d);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P1(int *a, int *b, int *c, int *d, struct srcu_struct *s)
> > > {
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*b, 1);
> > > 	synchronize_srcu(s);
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*c, 1);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P2(int *a, int *b, int *c, int *d, struct srcu_struct *s)
> > > {
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*d, 1);
> > > 	smp_mb();
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*a, 1);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > exists (0:r2=1 /\ 0:r3=1 /\ 0:r4=0 /\ b=1)
> >