diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | tools/memory-model/Documentation/litmus-tests.txt | 1108 |
1 files changed, 1108 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/litmus-tests.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/litmus-tests.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..26554b1c5575 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/litmus-tests.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1108 @@ +Linux-Kernel Memory Model Litmus Tests +====================================== + +This file describes the LKMM litmus-test format by example, describes +some tricks and traps, and finally outlines LKMM's limitations. Earlier +versions of this material appeared in a number of LWN articles, including: + +https://lwn.net/Articles/720550/ + A formal kernel memory-ordering model (part 2) +https://lwn.net/Articles/608550/ + Axiomatic validation of memory barriers and atomic instructions +https://lwn.net/Articles/470681/ + Validating Memory Barriers and Atomic Instructions + +This document presents information in decreasing order of applicability, +so that, where possible, the information that has proven more commonly +useful is shown near the beginning. + +For information on installing LKMM, including the underlying "herd7" +tool, please see tools/memory-model/README. + + +Copy-Pasta +========== + +As with other software, it is often better (if less macho) to adapt an +existing litmus test than it is to create one from scratch. A number +of litmus tests may be found in the kernel source tree: + + tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ + Documentation/litmus-tests/ + +Several thousand more example litmus tests are available on github +and kernel.org: + + https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/perfbook.git/tree/CodeSamples/formal/herd + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/perfbook.git/tree/CodeSamples/formal/litmus + +The -l and -L arguments to "git grep" can be quite helpful in identifying +existing litmus tests that are similar to the one you need. But even if +you start with an existing litmus test, it is still helpful to have a +good understanding of the litmus-test format. + + +Examples and Format +=================== + +This section describes the overall format of litmus tests, starting +with a small example of the message-passing pattern and moving on to +more complex examples that illustrate explicit initialization and LKMM's +minimalistic set of flow-control statements. + + +Message-Passing Example +----------------------- + +This section gives an overview of the format of a litmus test using an +example based on the common message-passing use case. This use case +appears often in the Linux kernel. For example, a flag (modeled by "y" +below) indicates that a buffer (modeled by "x" below) is now completely +filled in and ready for use. It would be very bad if the consumer saw the +flag set, but, due to memory misordering, saw old values in the buffer. + +This example asks whether smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire() +suffices to avoid this bad outcome: + + 1 C MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce + 2 + 3 {} + 4 + 5 P0(int *x, int *y) + 6 { + 7 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); + 8 smp_store_release(y, 1); + 9 } +10 +11 P1(int *x, int *y) +12 { +13 int r0; +14 int r1; +15 +16 r0 = smp_load_acquire(y); +17 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); +18 } +19 +20 exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) + +Line 1 starts with "C", which identifies this file as being in the +LKMM C-language format (which, as we will see, is a small fragment +of the full C language). The remainder of line 1 is the name of +the test, which by convention is the filename with the ".litmus" +suffix stripped. In this case, the actual test may be found in +tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce.litmus +in the Linux-kernel source tree. + +Mechanically generated litmus tests will often have an optional +double-quoted comment string on the second line. Such strings are ignored +when running the test. Yes, you can add your own comments to litmus +tests, but this is a bit involved due to the use of multiple parsers. +For now, you can use C-language comments in the C code, and these comments +may be in either the "/* */" or the "//" style. A later section will +cover the full litmus-test commenting story. + +Line 3 is the initialization section. Because the default initialization +to zero suffices for this test, the "{}" syntax is used, which mean the +initialization section is empty. Litmus tests requiring non-default +initialization must have non-empty initialization sections, as in the +example that will be presented later in this document. + +Lines 5-9 show the first process and lines 11-18 the second process. Each +process corresponds to a Linux-kernel task (or kthread, workqueue, thread, +and so on; LKMM discussions often use these terms interchangeably). +The name of the first process is "P0" and that of the second "P1". +You can name your processes anything you like as long as the names consist +of a single "P" followed by a number, and as long as the numbers are +consecutive starting with zero. This can actually be quite helpful, +for example, a .litmus file matching "^P1(" but not matching "^P2(" +must contain a two-process litmus test. + +The argument list for each function are pointers to the global variables +used by that function. Unlike normal C-language function parameters, the +names are significant. The fact that both P0() and P1() have a formal +parameter named "x" means that these two processes are working with the +same global variable, also named "x". So the "int *x, int *y" on P0() +and P1() mean that both processes are working with two shared global +variables, "x" and "y". Global variables are always passed to processes +by reference, hence "P0(int *x, int *y)", but *never* "P0(int x, int y)". + +P0() has no local variables, but P1() has two of them named "r0" and "r1". +These names may be freely chosen, but for historical reasons stemming from +other litmus-test formats, it is conventional to use names consisting of +"r" followed by a number as shown here. A common bug in litmus tests +is forgetting to add a global variable to a process's parameter list. +This will sometimes result in an error message, but can also cause the +intended global to instead be silently treated as an undeclared local +variable. + +Each process's code is similar to Linux-kernel C, as can be seen on lines +7-8 and 13-17. This code may use many of the Linux kernel's atomic +operations, some of its exclusive-lock functions, and some of its RCU +and SRCU functions. An approximate list of the currently supported +functions may be found in the linux-kernel.def file. + +The P0() process does "WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1)" on line 7. Because "x" is a +pointer in P0()'s parameter list, this does an unordered store to global +variable "x". Line 8 does "smp_store_release(y, 1)", and because "y" +is also in P0()'s parameter list, this does a release store to global +variable "y". + +The P1() process declares two local variables on lines 13 and 14. +Line 16 does "r0 = smp_load_acquire(y)" which does an acquire load +from global variable "y" into local variable "r0". Line 17 does a +"r1 = READ_ONCE(*x)", which does an unordered load from "*x" into local +variable "r1". Both "x" and "y" are in P1()'s parameter list, so both +reference the same global variables that are used by P0(). + +Line 20 is the "exists" assertion expression to evaluate the final state. +This final state is evaluated after the dust has settled: both processes +have completed and all of their memory references and memory barriers +have propagated to all parts of the system. The references to the local +variables "r0" and "r1" in line 24 must be prefixed with "1:" to specify +which process they are local to. + +Note that the assertion expression is written in the litmus-test +language rather than in C. For example, single "=" is an equality +operator rather than an assignment. The "/\" character combination means +"and". Similarly, "\/" stands for "or". Both of these are ASCII-art +representations of the corresponding mathematical symbols. Finally, +"~" stands for "logical not", which is "!" in C, and not to be confused +with the C-language "~" operator which instead stands for "bitwise not". +Parentheses may be used to override precedence. + +The "exists" assertion on line 20 is satisfied if the consumer sees the +flag ("y") set but the buffer ("x") as not yet filled in, that is, if P1() +loaded a value from "x" that was equal to 1 but loaded a value from "y" +that was still equal to zero. + +This example can be checked by running the following command, which +absolutely must be run from the tools/memory-model directory and from +this directory only: + +herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg litmus-tests/MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce.litmus + +The output is the result of something similar to a full state-space +search, and is as follows: + + 1 Test MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce Allowed + 2 States 3 + 3 1:r0=0; 1:r1=0; + 4 1:r0=0; 1:r1=1; + 5 1:r0=1; 1:r1=1; + 6 No + 7 Witnesses + 8 Positive: 0 Negative: 3 + 9 Condition exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) +10 Observation MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce Never 0 3 +11 Time MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce 0.00 +12 Hash=579aaa14d8c35a39429b02e698241d09 + +The most pertinent line is line 10, which contains "Never 0 3", which +indicates that the bad result flagged by the "exists" clause never +happens. This line might instead say "Sometimes" to indicate that the +bad result happened in some but not all executions, or it might say +"Always" to indicate that the bad result happened in all executions. +(The herd7 tool doesn't judge, so it is only an LKMM convention that the +"exists" clause indicates a bad result. To see this, invert the "exists" +clause's condition and run the test.) The numbers ("0 3") at the end +of this line indicate the number of end states satisfying the "exists" +clause (0) and the number not not satisfying that clause (3). + +Another important part of this output is shown in lines 2-5, repeated here: + + 2 States 3 + 3 1:r0=0; 1:r1=0; + 4 1:r0=0; 1:r1=1; + 5 1:r0=1; 1:r1=1; + +Line 2 gives the total number of end states, and each of lines 3-5 list +one of these states, with the first ("1:r0=0; 1:r1=0;") indicating that +both of P1()'s loads returned the value "0". As expected, given the +"Never" on line 10, the state flagged by the "exists" clause is not +listed. This full list of states can be helpful when debugging a new +litmus test. + +The rest of the output is not normally needed, either due to irrelevance +or due to being redundant with the lines discussed above. However, the +following paragraph lists them for the benefit of readers possessed of +an insatiable curiosity. Other readers should feel free to skip ahead. + +Line 1 echos the test name, along with the "Test" and "Allowed". Line 6's +"No" says that the "exists" clause was not satisfied by any execution, +and as such it has the same meaning as line 10's "Never". Line 7 is a +lead-in to line 8's "Positive: 0 Negative: 3", which lists the number +of end states satisfying and not satisfying the "exists" clause, just +like the two numbers at the end of line 10. Line 9 repeats the "exists" +clause so that you don't have to look it up in the litmus-test file. +The number at the end of line 11 (which begins with "Time") gives the +time in seconds required to analyze the litmus test. Small tests such +as this one complete in a few milliseconds, so "0.00" is quite common. +Line 12 gives a hash of the contents for the litmus-test file, and is used +by tooling that manages litmus tests and their output. This tooling is +used by people modifying LKMM itself, and among other things lets such +people know which of the several thousand relevant litmus tests were +affected by a given change to LKMM. + + +Initialization +-------------- + +The previous example relied on the default zero initialization for +"x" and "y", but a similar litmus test could instead initialize them +to some other value: + + 1 C MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce + 2 + 3 { + 4 x=42; + 5 y=42; + 6 } + 7 + 8 P0(int *x, int *y) + 9 { +10 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); +11 smp_store_release(y, 1); +12 } +13 +14 P1(int *x, int *y) +15 { +16 int r0; +17 int r1; +18 +19 r0 = smp_load_acquire(y); +20 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); +21 } +22 +23 exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=42) + +Lines 3-6 now initialize both "x" and "y" to the value 42. This also +means that the "exists" clause on line 23 must change "1:r1=0" to +"1:r1=42". + +Running the test gives the same overall result as before, but with the +value 42 appearing in place of the value zero: + + 1 Test MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce Allowed + 2 States 3 + 3 1:r0=1; 1:r1=1; + 4 1:r0=42; 1:r1=1; + 5 1:r0=42; 1:r1=42; + 6 No + 7 Witnesses + 8 Positive: 0 Negative: 3 + 9 Condition exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=42) +10 Observation MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce Never 0 3 +11 Time MP+pooncerelease+poacquireonce 0.02 +12 Hash=ab9a9b7940a75a792266be279a980156 + +It is tempting to avoid the open-coded repetitions of the value "42" +by defining another global variable "initval=42" and replacing all +occurrences of "42" with "initval". This will not, repeat *not*, +initialize "x" and "y" to 42, but instead to the address of "initval" +(try it!). See the section below on linked lists to learn more about +why this approach to initialization can be useful. + + +Control Structures +------------------ + +LKMM supports the C-language "if" statement, which allows modeling of +conditional branches. In LKMM, conditional branches can affect ordering, +but only if you are *very* careful (compilers are surprisingly able +to optimize away conditional branches). The following example shows +the "load buffering" (LB) use case that is used in the Linux kernel to +synchronize between ring-buffer producers and consumers. In the example +below, P0() is one side checking to see if an operation may proceed and +P1() is the other side completing its update. + + 1 C LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce + 2 + 3 {} + 4 + 5 P0(int *x, int *y) + 6 { + 7 int r0; + 8 + 9 r0 = READ_ONCE(*x); +10 if (r0) +11 WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); +12 } +13 +14 P1(int *x, int *y) +15 { +16 int r0; +17 +18 r0 = READ_ONCE(*y); +19 smp_mb(); +20 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); +21 } +22 +23 exists (0:r0=1 /\ 1:r0=1) + +P1()'s "if" statement on line 10 works as expected, so that line 11 is +executed only if line 9 loads a non-zero value from "x". Because P1()'s +write of "1" to "x" happens only after P1()'s read from "y", one would +hope that the "exists" clause cannot be satisfied. LKMM agrees: + + 1 Test LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce Allowed + 2 States 2 + 3 0:r0=0; 1:r0=0; + 4 0:r0=1; 1:r0=0; + 5 No + 6 Witnesses + 7 Positive: 0 Negative: 2 + 8 Condition exists (0:r0=1 /\ 1:r0=1) + 9 Observation LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce Never 0 2 +10 Time LB+fencembonceonce+ctrlonceonce 0.00 +11 Hash=e5260556f6de495fd39b556d1b831c3b + +However, there is no "while" statement due to the fact that full +state-space search has some difficulty with iteration. However, there +are tricks that may be used to handle some special cases, which are +discussed below. In addition, loop-unrolling tricks may be applied, +albeit sparingly. + + +Tricks and Traps +================ + +This section covers extracting debug output from herd7, emulating +spin loops, handling trivial linked lists, adding comments to litmus tests, +emulating call_rcu(), and finally tricks to improve herd7 performance +in order to better handle large litmus tests. + + +Debug Output +------------ + +By default, the herd7 state output includes all variables mentioned +in the "exists" clause. But sometimes debugging efforts are greatly +aided by the values of other variables. Consider this litmus test +(tools/memory-order/litmus-tests/SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces.litmus but +slightly modified), which probes an obscure corner of hardware memory +ordering: + + 1 C SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces + 2 + 3 {} + 4 + 5 P0(int *x, int *y) + 6 { + 7 int r1; + 8 int r2; + 9 +10 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); +11 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); +12 r2 = READ_ONCE(*y); +13 } +14 +15 P1(int *x, int *y) +16 { +17 int r3; +18 int r4; +19 +20 WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); +21 r3 = READ_ONCE(*y); +22 r4 = READ_ONCE(*x); +23 } +24 +25 exists (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r4=0) + +The herd7 output is as follows: + + 1 Test SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces Allowed + 2 States 4 + 3 0:r2=0; 1:r4=0; + 4 0:r2=0; 1:r4=1; + 5 0:r2=1; 1:r4=0; + 6 0:r2=1; 1:r4=1; + 7 Ok + 8 Witnesses + 9 Positive: 1 Negative: 3 +10 Condition exists (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r4=0) +11 Observation SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces Sometimes 1 3 +12 Time SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces 0.01 +13 Hash=c7f30fe0faebb7d565405d55b7318ada + +(This output indicates that CPUs are permitted to "snoop their own +store buffers", which all of Linux's CPU families other than s390 will +happily do. Such snooping results in disagreement among CPUs on the +order of stores from different CPUs, which is rarely an issue.) + +But the herd7 output shows only the two variables mentioned in the +"exists" clause. Someone modifying this test might wish to know the +values of "x", "y", "0:r1", and "0:r3" as well. The "locations" +statement on line 25 shows how to cause herd7 to display additional +variables: + + 1 C SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces + 2 + 3 {} + 4 + 5 P0(int *x, int *y) + 6 { + 7 int r1; + 8 int r2; + 9 +10 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); +11 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); +12 r2 = READ_ONCE(*y); +13 } +14 +15 P1(int *x, int *y) +16 { +17 int r3; +18 int r4; +19 +20 WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); +21 r3 = READ_ONCE(*y); +22 r4 = READ_ONCE(*x); +23 } +24 +25 locations [0:r1; 1:r3; x; y] +26 exists (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r4=0) + +The herd7 output then displays the values of all the variables: + + 1 Test SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces Allowed + 2 States 4 + 3 0:r1=1; 0:r2=0; 1:r3=1; 1:r4=0; x=1; y=1; + 4 0:r1=1; 0:r2=0; 1:r3=1; 1:r4=1; x=1; y=1; + 5 0:r1=1; 0:r2=1; 1:r3=1; 1:r4=0; x=1; y=1; + 6 0:r1=1; 0:r2=1; 1:r3=1; 1:r4=1; x=1; y=1; + 7 Ok + 8 Witnesses + 9 Positive: 1 Negative: 3 +10 Condition exists (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r4=0) +11 Observation SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces Sometimes 1 3 +12 Time SB+rfionceonce-poonceonces 0.01 +13 Hash=40de8418c4b395388f6501cafd1ed38d + +What if you would like to know the value of a particular global variable +at some particular point in a given process's execution? One approach +is to use a READ_ONCE() to load that global variable into a new local +variable, then add that local variable to the "locations" clause. +But be careful: In some litmus tests, adding a READ_ONCE() will change +the outcome! For one example, please see the C-READ_ONCE.litmus and +C-READ_ONCE-omitted.litmus tests located here: + + https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/ + + +Spin Loops +---------- + +The analysis carried out by herd7 explores full state space, which is +at best of exponential time complexity. Adding processes and increasing +the amount of code in a give process can greatly increase execution time. +Potentially infinite loops, such as those used to wait for locks to +become available, are clearly problematic. + +Fortunately, it is possible to avoid state-space explosion by specially +modeling such loops. For example, the following litmus tests emulates +locking using xchg_acquire(), but instead of enclosing xchg_acquire() +in a spin loop, it instead excludes executions that fail to acquire the +lock using a herd7 "filter" clause. Note that for exclusive locking, you +are better off using the spin_lock() and spin_unlock() that LKMM directly +models, if for no other reason that these are much faster. However, the +techniques illustrated in this section can be used for other purposes, +such as emulating reader-writer locking, which LKMM does not yet model. + + 1 C C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X + 2 + 3 { + 4 } + 5 + 6 P0(int *sl, int *x0, int *x1) + 7 { + 8 int r2; + 9 int r1; +10 +11 r2 = xchg_acquire(sl, 1); +12 WRITE_ONCE(*x0, 1); +13 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x1); +14 smp_store_release(sl, 0); +15 } +16 +17 P1(int *sl, int *x0, int *x1) +18 { +19 int r2; +20 int r1; +21 +22 r2 = xchg_acquire(sl, 1); +23 WRITE_ONCE(*x1, 1); +24 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x0); +25 smp_store_release(sl, 0); +26 } +27 +28 filter (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r2=0) +29 exists (0:r1=0 /\ 1:r1=0) + +This litmus test may be found here: + +https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/perfbook.git/tree/CodeSamples/formal/herd/C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X.litmus + +This test uses two global variables, "x1" and "x2", and also emulates a +single global spinlock named "sl". This spinlock is held by whichever +process changes the value of "sl" from "0" to "1", and is released when +that process sets "sl" back to "0". P0()'s lock acquisition is emulated +on line 11 using xchg_acquire(), which unconditionally stores the value +"1" to "sl" and stores either "0" or "1" to "r2", depending on whether +the lock acquisition was successful or unsuccessful (due to "sl" already +having the value "1"), respectively. P1() operates in a similar manner. + +Rather unconventionally, execution appears to proceed to the critical +section on lines 12 and 13 in either case. Line 14 then uses an +smp_store_release() to store zero to "sl", thus emulating lock release. + +The case where xchg_acquire() fails to acquire the lock is handled by +the "filter" clause on line 28, which tells herd7 to keep only those +executions in which both "0:r2" and "1:r2" are zero, that is to pay +attention only to those executions in which both locks are actually +acquired. Thus, the bogus executions that would execute the critical +sections are discarded and any effects that they might have had are +ignored. Note well that the "filter" clause keeps those executions +for which its expression is satisfied, that is, for which the expression +evaluates to true. In other words, the "filter" clause says what to +keep, not what to discard. + +The result of running this test is as follows: + + 1 Test C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X Allowed + 2 States 2 + 3 0:r1=0; 1:r1=1; + 4 0:r1=1; 1:r1=0; + 5 No + 6 Witnesses + 7 Positive: 0 Negative: 2 + 8 Condition exists (0:r1=0 /\ 1:r1=0) + 9 Observation C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X Never 0 2 +10 Time C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X 0.03 + +The "Never" on line 9 indicates that this use of xchg_acquire() and +smp_store_release() really does correctly emulate locking. + +Why doesn't the litmus test take the simpler approach of using a spin loop +to handle failed spinlock acquisitions, like the kernel does? The key +insight behind this litmus test is that spin loops have no effect on the +possible "exists"-clause outcomes of program execution in the absence +of deadlock. In other words, given a high-quality lock-acquisition +primitive in a deadlock-free program running on high-quality hardware, +each lock acquisition will eventually succeed. Because herd7 already +explores the full state space, the length of time required to actually +acquire the lock does not matter. After all, herd7 already models all +possible durations of the xchg_acquire() statements. + +Why not just add the "filter" clause to the "exists" clause, thus +avoiding the "filter" clause entirely? This does work, but is slower. +The reason that the "filter" clause is faster is that (in the common case) +herd7 knows to abandon an execution as soon as the "filter" expression +fails to be satisfied. In contrast, the "exists" clause is evaluated +only at the end of time, thus requiring herd7 to waste time on bogus +executions in which both critical sections proceed concurrently. In +addition, some LKMM users like the separation of concerns provided by +using the both the "filter" and "exists" clauses. + +Readers lacking a pathological interest in odd corner cases should feel +free to skip the remainder of this section. + +But what if the litmus test were to temporarily set "0:r2" to a non-zero +value? Wouldn't that cause herd7 to abandon the execution prematurely +due to an early mismatch of the "filter" clause? + +Why not just try it? Line 4 of the following modified litmus test +introduces a new global variable "x2" that is initialized to "1". Line 23 +of P1() reads that variable into "1:r2" to force an early mismatch with +the "filter" clause. Line 24 does a known-true "if" condition to avoid +and static analysis that herd7 might do. Finally the "exists" clause +on line 32 is updated to a condition that is alway satisfied at the end +of the test. + + 1 C C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X + 2 + 3 { + 4 x2=1; + 5 } + 6 + 7 P0(int *sl, int *x0, int *x1) + 8 { + 9 int r2; +10 int r1; +11 +12 r2 = xchg_acquire(sl, 1); +13 WRITE_ONCE(*x0, 1); +14 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x1); +15 smp_store_release(sl, 0); +16 } +17 +18 P1(int *sl, int *x0, int *x1, int *x2) +19 { +20 int r2; +21 int r1; +22 +23 r2 = READ_ONCE(*x2); +24 if (r2) +25 r2 = xchg_acquire(sl, 1); +26 WRITE_ONCE(*x1, 1); +27 r1 = READ_ONCE(*x0); +28 smp_store_release(sl, 0); +29 } +30 +31 filter (0:r2=0 /\ 1:r2=0) +32 exists (x1=1) + +If the "filter" clause were to check each variable at each point in the +execution, running this litmus test would display no executions because +all executions would be filtered out at line 23. However, the output +is instead as follows: + + 1 Test C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X Allowed + 2 States 1 + 3 x1=1; + 4 Ok + 5 Witnesses + 6 Positive: 2 Negative: 0 + 7 Condition exists (x1=1) + 8 Observation C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X Always 2 0 + 9 Time C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X 0.04 +10 Hash=080bc508da7f291e122c6de76c0088e3 + +Line 3 shows that there is one execution that did not get filtered out, +so the "filter" clause is evaluated only on the last assignment to +the variables that it checks. In this case, the "filter" clause is a +disjunction, so it might be evaluated twice, once at the final (and only) +assignment to "0:r2" and once at the final assignment to "1:r2". + + +Linked Lists +------------ + +LKMM can handle linked lists, but only linked lists in which each node +contains nothing except a pointer to the next node in the list. This is +of course quite restrictive, but there is nevertheless quite a bit that +can be done within these confines, as can be seen in the litmus test +at tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus: + + 1 C MP+onceassign+derefonce + 2 + 3 { + 4 y=z; + 5 z=0; + 6 } + 7 + 8 P0(int *x, int **y) + 9 { +10 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); +11 rcu_assign_pointer(*y, x); +12 } +13 +14 P1(int *x, int **y) +15 { +16 int *r0; +17 int r1; +18 +19 rcu_read_lock(); +20 r0 = rcu_dereference(*y); +21 r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0); +22 rcu_read_unlock(); +23 } +24 +25 exists (1:r0=x /\ 1:r1=0) + +Line 4's "y=z" may seem odd, given that "z" has not yet been initialized. +But "y=z" does not set the value of "y" to that of "z", but instead +sets the value of "y" to the *address* of "z". Lines 4 and 5 therefore +create a simple linked list, with "y" pointing to "z" and "z" having a +NULL pointer. A much longer linked list could be created if desired, +and circular singly linked lists can also be created and manipulated. + +The "exists" clause works the same way, with the "1:r0=x" comparing P1()'s +"r0" not to the value of "x", but again to its address. This term of the +"exists" clause therefore tests whether line 20's load from "y" saw the +value stored by line 11, which is in fact what is required in this case. + +P0()'s line 10 initializes "x" to the value 1 then line 11 links to "x" +from "y", replacing "z". + +P1()'s line 20 loads a pointer from "y", and line 21 dereferences that +pointer. The RCU read-side critical section spanning lines 19-22 is just +for show in this example. Note that the address used for line 21's load +depends on (in this case, "is exactly the same as") the value loaded by +line 20. This is an example of what is called an "address dependency". +This particular address dependency extends from the load on line 20 to the +load on line 21. Address dependencies provide a weak form of ordering. + +Running this test results in the following: + + 1 Test MP+onceassign+derefonce Allowed + 2 States 2 + 3 1:r0=x; 1:r1=1; + 4 1:r0=z; 1:r1=0; + 5 No + 6 Witnesses + 7 Positive: 0 Negative: 2 + 8 Condition exists (1:r0=x /\ 1:r1=0) + 9 Observation MP+onceassign+derefonce Never 0 2 +10 Time MP+onceassign+derefonce 0.00 +11 Hash=49ef7a741563570102448a256a0c8568 + +The only possible outcomes feature P1() loading a pointer to "z" +(which contains zero) on the one hand and P1() loading a pointer to "x" +(which contains the value one) on the other. This should be reassuring +because it says that RCU readers cannot see the old preinitialization +values when accessing a newly inserted list node. This undesirable +scenario is flagged by the "exists" clause, and would occur if P1() +loaded a pointer to "x", but obtained the pre-initialization value of +zero after dereferencing that pointer. + + +Comments +-------- + +Different portions of a litmus test are processed by different parsers, +which has the charming effect of requiring different comment syntax in +different portions of the litmus test. The C-syntax portions use +C-language comments (either "/* */" or "//"), while the other portions +use Ocaml comments "(* *)". + +The following litmus test illustrates the comment style corresponding +to each syntactic unit of the test: + + 1 C MP+onceassign+derefonce (* A *) + 2 + 3 (* B *) + 4 + 5 { + 6 y=z; (* C *) + 7 z=0; + 8 } // D + 9 +10 // E +11 +12 P0(int *x, int **y) // F +13 { +14 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); // G +15 rcu_assign_pointer(*y, x); +16 } +17 +18 // H +19 +20 P1(int *x, int **y) +21 { +22 int *r0; +23 int r1; +24 +25 rcu_read_lock(); +26 r0 = rcu_dereference(*y); +27 r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0); +28 rcu_read_unlock(); +29 } +30 +31 // I +32 +33 exists (* J *) (1:r0=x /\ (* K *) 1:r1=0) (* L *) + +In short, use C-language comments in the C code and Ocaml comments in +the rest of the litmus test. + +On the other hand, if you prefer C-style comments everywhere, the +C preprocessor is your friend. + + +Asynchronous RCU Grace Periods +------------------------------ + +The following litmus test is derived from the example show in +Documentation/litmus-tests/rcu/RCU+sync+free.litmus, but converted to +emulate call_rcu(): + + 1 C RCU+sync+free + 2 + 3 { + 4 int x = 1; + 5 int *y = &x; + 6 int z = 1; + 7 } + 8 + 9 P0(int *x, int *z, int **y) +10 { +11 int *r0; +12 int r1; +13 +14 rcu_read_lock(); +15 r0 = rcu_dereference(*y); +16 r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0); +17 rcu_read_unlock(); +18 } +19 +20 P1(int *z, int **y, int *c) +21 { +22 rcu_assign_pointer(*y, z); +23 smp_store_release(*c, 1); // Emulate call_rcu(). +24 } +25 +26 P2(int *x, int *z, int **y, int *c) +27 { +28 int r0; +29 +30 r0 = smp_load_acquire(*c); // Note call_rcu() request. +31 synchronize_rcu(); // Wait one grace period. +32 WRITE_ONCE(*x, 0); // Emulate the RCU callback. +33 } +34 +35 filter (2:r0=1) (* Reject too-early starts. *) +36 exists (0:r0=x /\ 0:r1=0) + +Lines 4-6 initialize a linked list headed by "y" that initially contains +"x". In addition, "z" is pre-initialized to prepare for P1(), which +will replace "x" with "z" in this list. + +P0() on lines 9-18 enters an RCU read-side critical section, loads the +list header "y" and dereferences it, leaving the node in "0:r0" and +the node's value in "0:r1". + +P1() on lines 20-24 updates the list header to instead reference "z", +then emulates call_rcu() by doing a release store into "c". + +P2() on lines 27-33 emulates the behind-the-scenes effect of doing a +call_rcu(). Line 30 first does an acquire load from "c", then line 31 +waits for an RCU grace period to elapse, and finally line 32 emulates +the RCU callback, which in turn emulates a call to kfree(). + +Of course, it is possible for P2() to start too soon, so that the +value of "2:r0" is zero rather than the required value of "1". +The "filter" clause on line 35 handles this possibility, rejecting +all executions in which "2:r0" is not equal to the value "1". + + +Performance +----------- + +LKMM's exploration of the full state-space can be extremely helpful, +but it does not come for free. The price is exponential computational +complexity in terms of the number of processes, the average number +of statements in each process, and the total number of stores in the +litmus test. + +So it is best to start small and then work up. Where possible, break +your code down into small pieces each representing a core concurrency +requirement. + +That said, herd7 is quite fast. On an unprepossessing x86 laptop, it +was able to analyze the following 10-process RCU litmus test in about +six seconds. + +https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/auto/C-RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R.litmus + +One way to make herd7 run faster is to use the "-speedcheck true" option. +This option prevents herd7 from generating all possible end states, +instead causing it to focus solely on whether or not the "exists" +clause can be satisfied. With this option, herd7 evaluates the above +litmus test in about 300 milliseconds, for more than an order of magnitude +improvement in performance. + +Larger 16-process litmus tests that would normally consume 15 minutes +of time complete in about 40 seconds with this option. To be fair, +you do get an extra 65,535 states when you leave off the "-speedcheck +true" option. + +https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/auto/C-RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R.litmus + +Nevertheless, litmus-test analysis really is of exponential complexity, +whether with or without "-speedcheck true". Increasing by just three +processes to a 19-process litmus test requires 2 hours and 40 minutes +without, and about 8 minutes with "-speedcheck true". Each of these +results represent roughly an order of magnitude slowdown compared to the +16-process litmus test. Again, to be fair, the multi-hour run explores +no fewer than 524,287 additional states compared to the shorter one. + +https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/auto/C-RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-G+RW-R+RW-R+RW-R.litmus + +If you don't like command-line arguments, you can obtain a similar speedup +by adding a "filter" clause with exactly the same expression as your +"exists" clause. + +However, please note that seeing the full set of states can be extremely +helpful when developing and debugging litmus tests. + + +LIMITATIONS +=========== + +Limitations of the Linux-kernel memory model (LKMM) include: + +1. Compiler optimizations are not accurately modeled. Of course, + the use of READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() limits the compiler's + ability to optimize, but under some circumstances it is possible + for the compiler to undermine the memory model. For more + information, see Documentation/explanation.txt (in particular, + the "THE PROGRAM ORDER RELATION: po AND po-loc" and "A WARNING" + sections). + + Note that this limitation in turn limits LKMM's ability to + accurately model address, control, and data dependencies. + For example, if the compiler can deduce the value of some variable + carrying a dependency, then the compiler can break that dependency + by substituting a constant of that value. + + Conversely, LKMM will sometimes overestimate the amount of + reordering compilers and CPUs can carry out, leading it to miss + some pretty obvious cases of ordering. A simple example is: + + r1 = READ_ONCE(x); + if (r1 == 0) + smp_mb(); + WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); + + The WRITE_ONCE() does not depend on the READ_ONCE(), and as a + result, LKMM does not claim ordering. However, even though no + dependency is present, the WRITE_ONCE() will not be executed before + the READ_ONCE(). There are two reasons for this: + + The presence of the smp_mb() in one of the branches + prevents the compiler from moving the WRITE_ONCE() + up before the "if" statement, since the compiler has + to assume that r1 will sometimes be 0 (but see the + comment below); + + CPUs do not execute stores before po-earlier conditional + branches, even in cases where the store occurs after the + two arms of the branch have recombined. + + It is clear that it is not dangerous in the slightest for LKMM to + make weaker guarantees than architectures. In fact, it is + desirable, as it gives compilers room for making optimizations. + For instance, suppose that a 0 value in r1 would trigger undefined + behavior elsewhere. Then a clever compiler might deduce that r1 + can never be 0 in the if condition. As a result, said clever + compiler might deem it safe to optimize away the smp_mb(), + eliminating the branch and any ordering an architecture would + guarantee otherwise. + +2. Multiple access sizes for a single variable are not supported, + and neither are misaligned or partially overlapping accesses. + +3. Exceptions and interrupts are not modeled. In some cases, + this limitation can be overcome by modeling the interrupt or + exception with an additional process. + +4. I/O such as MMIO or DMA is not supported. + +5. Self-modifying code (such as that found in the kernel's + alternatives mechanism, function tracer, Berkeley Packet Filter + JIT compiler, and module loader) is not supported. + +6. Complete modeling of all variants of atomic read-modify-write + operations, locking primitives, and RCU is not provided. + For example, call_rcu() and rcu_barrier() are not supported. + However, a substantial amount of support is provided for these + operations, as shown in the linux-kernel.def file. + + Here are specific limitations: + + a. When rcu_assign_pointer() is passed NULL, the Linux + kernel provides no ordering, but LKMM models this + case as a store release. + + b. The "unless" RMW operations are not currently modeled: + atomic_long_add_unless(), atomic_inc_unless_negative(), + and atomic_dec_unless_positive(). These can be emulated + in litmus tests, for example, by using atomic_cmpxchg(). + + One exception of this limitation is atomic_add_unless(), + which is provided directly by herd7 (so no corresponding + definition in linux-kernel.def). atomic_add_unless() is + modeled by herd7 therefore it can be used in litmus tests. + + c. The call_rcu() function is not modeled. As was shown above, + it can be emulated in litmus tests by adding another + process that invokes synchronize_rcu() and the body of the + callback function, with (for example) a release-acquire + from the site of the emulated call_rcu() to the beginning + of the additional process. + + d. The rcu_barrier() function is not modeled. It can be + emulated in litmus tests emulating call_rcu() via + (for example) a release-acquire from the end of each + additional call_rcu() process to the site of the + emulated rcu-barrier(). + + e. Although sleepable RCU (SRCU) is now modeled, there + are some subtle differences between its semantics and + those in the Linux kernel. For example, the kernel + might interpret the following sequence as two partially + overlapping SRCU read-side critical sections: + + 1 r1 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu); + 2 do_something_1(); + 3 r2 = srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu); + 4 do_something_2(); + 5 srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r1); + 6 do_something_3(); + 7 srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu, r2); + + In contrast, LKMM will interpret this as a nested pair of + SRCU read-side critical sections, with the outer critical + section spanning lines 1-7 and the inner critical section + spanning lines 3-5. + + This difference would be more of a concern had anyone + identified a reasonable use case for partially overlapping + SRCU read-side critical sections. For more information + on the trickiness of such overlapping, please see: + https://paulmck.livejournal.com/40593.html + + f. Reader-writer locking is not modeled. It can be + emulated in litmus tests using atomic read-modify-write + operations. + +The fragment of the C language supported by these litmus tests is quite +limited and in some ways non-standard: + +1. There is no automatic C-preprocessor pass. You can of course + run it manually, if you choose. + +2. There is no way to create functions other than the Pn() functions + that model the concurrent processes. + +3. The Pn() functions' formal parameters must be pointers to the + global shared variables. Nothing can be passed by value into + these functions. + +4. The only functions that can be invoked are those built directly + into herd7 or that are defined in the linux-kernel.def file. + +5. The "switch", "do", "for", "while", and "goto" C statements are + not supported. The "switch" statement can be emulated by the + "if" statement. The "do", "for", and "while" statements can + often be emulated by manually unrolling the loop, or perhaps by + enlisting the aid of the C preprocessor to minimize the resulting + code duplication. Some uses of "goto" can be emulated by "if", + and some others by unrolling. + +6. Although you can use a wide variety of types in litmus-test + variable declarations, and especially in global-variable + declarations, the "herd7" tool understands only int and + pointer types. There is no support for floating-point types, + enumerations, characters, strings, arrays, or structures. + +7. Parsing of variable declarations is very loose, with almost no + type checking. + +8. Initializers differ from their C-language counterparts. + For example, when an initializer contains the name of a shared + variable, that name denotes a pointer to that variable, not + the current value of that variable. For example, "int x = y" + is interpreted the way "int x = &y" would be in C. + +9. Dynamic memory allocation is not supported, although this can + be worked around in some cases by supplying multiple statically + allocated variables. + +Some of these limitations may be overcome in the future, but others are +more likely to be addressed by incorporating the Linux-kernel memory model +into other tools. + +Finally, please note that LKMM is subject to change as hardware, use cases, +and compilers evolve. |