Re: Unlock-lock questions and the Linux Kernel Memory Model

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:04:53AM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> On 11/27/2017 1:16 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This is essentially a repeat of an email I sent out before the
> > Thanksgiving holiday, the assumption being that lack of any responses
> > was caused by the holiday break.  (And this time the message is CC'ed
> > to LKML, so there will be a public record of it.)
> > 
> > A few people have said they believe the Linux Kernel Memory Model
> > should make unlock followed by lock (of the same variable) act as a
> > write memory barrier.  In other words, they want the memory model to
> > forbid the following litmus test:
> >
> <snip>
> > 
> > I (and others!) would like to know people's opinions on these matters.
> > 
> > Alan Stern
> 
> While we're here, let me ask about another test which isn't directly
> about unlock/lock but which is still somewhat related to this
> discussion:
> 
> "MP+wmb+xchg-acq" (or some such)

If you make the above be "C MP+wmb+xchg-acq", then this is currently
allowed by the current version of the Linux kernel memory model.
Also by the hardware model, interestingly enough.

						Thanx, Paul

> {}
> 
> P0(int *x, int *y)
> {
>         WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
>         smp_wmb();
>         WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> }
> 
> P1(int *x, int *y)
> {
>         r1 = atomic_xchg_relaxed(y, 2);
>         r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
>         r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> }
> 
> exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=2 /\ 1:r3=0)
> 
> C/C++ would call the atomic_xchg_relaxed part of a release sequence
> and hence would forbid this outcome.
> 
> x86 and Power would forbid this.  ARM forbids this via a special-case
> rule in the memory model, ordering atomics with later load-acquires.
> 
> RISC-V, however, wouldn't forbid this by default using RCpc or RCsc
> atomics for smp_load_acquire().  It's an "fri; rfi" type of pattern,
> because xchg doesn't have an inherent internal data dependency.
> 
> If the Linux memory model is going to forbid this outcome, then
> RISC-V would either need to use fences instead, or maybe we'd need to
> add a special rule to our memory model similarly.  This is one detail
> where RISC-V is still actively deciding what to do.
> 
> Have you all thought about this test before?  Any idea which way you
> are leaning regarding the outcome above?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan
>