On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:39:59PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 04:57:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Currently the Linux Kernel Memory Model gives an incorrect response
> > for the following litmus test:
> >
> > C plain-WWC
> >
> > {}
> >
> > P0(int *x)
> > {
> > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
> > }
> >
> > P1(int *x, int *y)
> > {
> > int r1;
> > int r2;
> > int r3;
> >
> > r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > if (r1 == 2) {
> > smp_rmb();
> > r2 = *x;
> > }
> > smp_rmb();
> > r3 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > WRITE_ONCE(*y, r3 - 1);
> > }
> >
> > P2(int *x, int *y)
> > {
> > int r4;
> >
> > r4 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > if (r4 > 0)
> > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > }
> >
> > exists (x=2 /\ 1:r2=2 /\ 2:r4=1)
> >
> > The memory model says that the plain read of *x in P1 races with the
> > WRITE_ONCE(*x) in P2.
> >
> > The problem is that we have a write W and a read R related by neither
> > fre or rfe, but rather W ->coe W' ->rfe R, where W' is an intermediate
> > write (the WRITE_ONCE() in P0). In this situation there is no
> > particular ordering between W and R, so either a wr-vis link from W to
> > R or an rw-xbstar link from R to W would prove that the accesses
> > aren't concurrent.
> >
> > But the LKMM only looks for a wr-vis link, which is equivalent to
> > assuming that W must execute before R. This is not necessarily true
> > on non-multicopy-atomic systems, as the WWC pattern demonstrates.
> >
> > This patch changes the LKMM to accept either a wr-vis or a reverse
> > rw-xbstar link as a proof of non-concurrency.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
>
> Acked-by: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com>
Applied, thank you both!
Thanx, Paul
