On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 07:47:23AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On 2018/02/24 10:08:14 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:49:20AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Andrea Parri wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 07:30:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:22:24PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >>>>> On 2018/02/22 07:29:02 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > >>>>>> On 2018/02/22 2:15, Alan Stern wrote: > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Akira pointed out some typos in the original patch, and he noted that > >>>>>>> cheatsheet.txt should be updated to indicate how unsuccessful RMW > >>>>>>> operations relate to address dependencies. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My point was to separate unannotated loads from READ_ONCE(), if the > >>>>>> cheatsheet should concern such accesses as well. > >>>>>> Unsuccessful RMW operations were brought up by Andrea. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Paul, can you amend above paragraph in the change log to something like: > >>>>> > >>>>> Akira pointed out some typos in the original patch, and he noted > >>>>> that > >>>>> cheatsheet.txt should be updated to indicate READ_ONCE() implies > >>>>> address dependency, which invited Andrea's observation that it > >>>>> should > >>>>> also be updated to indicate how unsuccessful RMW operations relate > >>>>> to > >>>>> address dependencies. > >>>>> > >>>>> , if Alan and Andrea are OK with the amendment. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, please append my Acked-by. > >>>>> > >>>>> Acked-by: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> I can still amend this, and have added your Acked-by. If Alan and Andrea > >>>> OK with your change, I will apply that also. > >>> > >>> LGTM. Thanks, > >> > >> Me too. > > > > Very good, how about this for the new version? > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > commit 21ede43970e50b7397420f17ed08bb02c187e2eb > > Author: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> > > Date: Wed Feb 21 12:15:56 2018 -0500 > > > > tools/memory-model: Update: Remove rb-dep, smp_read_barrier_depends, > > and lockless_dereference > > > > Commit bf28ae562744 ("tools/memory-model: Remove rb-dep, > > smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference") was accidentally > > merged too early, while it was still in RFC form. This patch adds in > > the missing pieces. > > > > Akira pointed out some typos in the original patch, and he noted that > > cheatsheet.txt should indicate that READ_ONCE() now implies an address > > dependency. Andrea suggested documenting the relationship betwwen > > unsuccessful RMW operations and address dependencies. > > Looks good. But I've found a remaining typo in the patch. See below. > > > > Andrea pointed out that the macro for rcu_dereference() in > > linux.def > > should now use the "once" annotation instead of "deref". He also > > suggested that the comments should mention commit 5a8897cc7631 > > ("locking/atomics/alpha: Add smp_read_barrier_depends() to > > _release()/_relaxed() atomics") as an important precursor, and he > > contributed commit cb13b424e986 ("locking/xchg/alpha: Add > > unconditional memory barrier to cmpxchg()"), another prerequisite. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu> > > Suggested-by: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> > > Suggested-by: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com> > > Fixes: bf28ae562744 ("tools/memory-model: Remove rb-dep, > > smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference") > > Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com> > > Acked-by: Akira Yokosawa <aki...@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt > > b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt > > index 04e458acd6d4..956b1ae4aafb 100644 > > --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/cheatsheet.txt > > @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ > > Prior Operation Subsequent Operation > > --------------- > > --------------------------- > > C Self R W RWM Self R W DR DW RMW > > SV > > - __ ---- - - --- ---- - - -- -- --- > > -- > > + -- ---- - - --- ---- - - -- -- --- > > -- > > > > Store, e.g., WRITE_ONCE() Y > > Y > > -Load, e.g., READ_ONCE() Y Y > > Y > > -Unsuccessful RMW operation Y Y > > Y > > +Load, e.g., READ_ONCE() Y Y Y > > Y > > +Unsuccessful RMW operation Y Y Y > > Y > > rcu_dereference() Y Y Y > > Y > > Successful *_acquire() R Y Y Y Y Y > > Y > > Successful *_release() C Y Y Y W > > Y > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt > > b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt > > index dae8b8cb2ad3..889fabef7d83 100644 > > --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt > > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ A-cumulative; they only affect the propagation of > > stores that are > > executed on C before the fence (i.e., those which precede the fence in > > program order). > > > > -read_lock(), rcu_read_unlock(), and synchronize_rcu() fences have > > +read_read_lock(), rcu_read_unlock(), and synchronize_rcu() fences have > > rcu_read_lock() > > Don't ask why I missed this in the first place... > > Paul, can you fix this directly?
Done! Thanx, Paul > Thanks, Akira > > > other properties which we discuss later. > > > > > > @@ -1138,7 +1138,7 @@ final effect is that even though the two loads really > > are executed in > > program order, it appears that they aren't. > > > > This could not have happened if the local cache had processed the > > -incoming stores in FIFO order. In constrast, other architectures > > +incoming stores in FIFO order. By contrast, other architectures > > maintain at least the appearance of FIFO order. > > > > In practice, this difficulty is solved by inserting a special fence > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def > > b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def > > index 5dfb9c7f3462..397e4e67e8c8 100644 > > --- a/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def > > +++ b/tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def > > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ WRITE_ONCE(X,V) { __store{once}(X,V); } > > smp_store_release(X,V) { __store{release}(*X,V); } > > smp_load_acquire(X) __load{acquire}(*X) > > rcu_assign_pointer(X,V) { __store{release}(X,V); } > > -rcu_dereference(X) __load{deref}(X) > > +rcu_dereference(X) __load{once}(X) > > > > // Fences > > smp_mb() { __fence{mb} ; } > > >