Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tools/memory-model: Make ppo a subrelation of po

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 11:03:46AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:17:34PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 05:59:52PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 11:14:17PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > > Evidently the plain-coherence check rules out x=1 at the 
> > > > > end, because when I relax that check, x=1 becomes a possible result.  
> > > > > Furthermore, the graphical output confirms that this execution has a 
> > > > > ww-incoh edge from Wx=2 to Wx=1.  But there is no ww-vis edge from Wx=1 
> > > > > to Wx=2!  How can this be possible?  It seems like a bug in herd7.
> > > > 
> > > > By default, herd7 performs some edges removal when generating the
> > > > graphical outputs.  The option -showraw can be useful to increase
> > > > the "verbosity", for example,
> > > > 
> > > >   [with "exists (x=2)", output in /tmp/T.dot]
> > > >   $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg T.litmus -show prop -o /tmp -skipchecks plain-coherence -doshow ww-vis -showraw ww-vis
> > > 
> > > Okay, thanks, that helps a lot.
> > > 
> > > So here's what we've got.  The litmus test:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > C hb-and-int
> > > {}
> > > 
> > > P0(int *x, int *y)
> > > {
> > >     *x = 1;
> > >     smp_store_release(y, 1);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P1(int *x, int *y, int *dx, int *dy, spinlock_t *l)
> > > {
> > >     spin_lock(l);
> > >     int r1 = READ_ONCE(*dy);
> > >     if (r1==1)
> > >         spin_unlock(l);
> > > 
> > >     int r0 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> > >     if (r0 == 1) {
> > >         WRITE_ONCE(*dx,1);
> > >     }
> > 
> > The lack of a spin_unlock() when r1!=1 is intentional?
> 
> I assume so.
> 
> > It is admittedly a cute way to prevent P3 from doing anything
> > when r1!=1.  And P1 won't do anything if P3 runs first.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P2(int *dx, int *dy)
> > > {
> > >     WRITE_ONCE(*dy,READ_ONCE(*dx));
> > > }
> > > 
> > > 
> > > P3(int *x, spinlock_t *l)
> > > {
> > >     spin_lock(l);
> > >     smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
> > >     *x = 2;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > exists (x=2)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The reason why Wx=1 ->ww-vis Wx=2:
> > > 
> > > 	0:Wx=1 ->po-rel 0:Wy=1 and po-rel < fence < ww-post-bounded.
> > > 
> > > 	0:Wy=1 ->rfe 1:Ry=1 ->(hb* & int) 1:Rdy=1 and
> > > 		(rfe ; hb* & int) <= (rfe ; xbstar & int) <= vis.
> > > 
> > > 	1:Rdy=1 ->po 1:unlock ->rfe 3:lock ->po 3:Wx=2
> > > 		so 1:Rdy=1 ->po-unlock-lock-po 3:Wx=2
> > > 		and po-unlock-lock-po <= mb <= fence <= w-pre-bounded.
> > > 
> > > Finally, w-post-bounded ; vis ; w-pre-bounded <= ww-vis.
> > > 
> > > This explains why the memory model says there isn't a data race.  This 
> > > doesn't use the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock at all.
> > 
> > You lost me on this one.
> > 
> > Suppose that P3 starts first, then P0.  P1 is then stuck at the
> > spin_lock() because P3 does not release that lock.  P2 goes out for a
> > pizza.
> 
> That wouldn't be a valid execution.  One of the rules in lock.cat says 
> that a spin_lock() call must read from a spin_unlock() or from an 
> initial write, which rules out executions in which P3 acquires the lock 
> first.

OK, I will bite...

Why can't P3's spin_lock() read from that initial write?

> > Why can't the two stores to x by P0 and P3 conflict, resulting in a
> > data race?
> 
> That can't happen in executions where P1 acquires the lock first for the 
> reason outlined above (P0's store to x propagates to P3 before P3 writes 
> to x).  And there are no other executions -- basically, herd7 ignores 
> deadlock scenarios.

True enough, if P1 gets there first, then P3 never stores to x.

What I don't understand is why P1 must always get there first.

							Thanx, Paul