[ltt-dev] [RFC git tree] Userspace RCU (urcu) for Linux (repost)

Paul E. McKenney paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Feb 12 11:18:05 EST 2009


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:47:07AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:10:44PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:33:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:35:49PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:42:58PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [ . . . ]
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > (BTW, I do not trust my model yet, as it currently cannot detect the
> > > > > > > > failure case I pointed out earlier.  :-/  Here and I thought that the
> > > > > > > > point of such models was to detect additional failure cases!!!)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes, I'll have to dig deeper into it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Well, as I said, I attached the current model and the error trail.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And I had bugs in my model that allowed the rcu_read_lock() model
> > > > > to nest indefinitely, which overflowed into the top bit, messing
> > > > > things up.  :-/
> > > > > 
> > > > > Attached is a fixed model.  This model validates correctly (woo-hoo!).
> > > > > Even better, gives the expected error if you comment out line 180 and
> > > > > uncomment line 213, this latter corresponding to the error case I called
> > > > > out a few days ago.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I will play with removing models of mb...
> > > > 
> > > > And commenting out the models of mb between the counter flips and the
> > > > test for readers still passes validation, as expected, and as shown in
> > > > the attached Promela code.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hrm, in the email I sent you about the memory barrier, I said that it
> > > would not make the algorithm incorrect, but that it would cause
> > > situations where it would be impossible for the writer to do any
> > > progress as long as there are readers active. I think we would have to
> > > enhance the model or at least express this through some LTL statement to
> > > validate this specific behavior.
> > 
> > But if the writer fails to make progress, then the counter remains at a
> > given value, which causes readers to drain, which allows the writer to
> > eventually make progress again.  Right?
> > 
> 
> Not necessarily. If we don't have the proper memory barriers, we can
> have the writer waiting on, say, parity 0 *before* it has performed the
> parity switch. Therefore, even newly coming readers will add up to
> parity 0.

But the write that changes the parity will eventually make it out.
OK, so your argument is that we at least need a compiler barrier?

Regardless, please see attached for a modified version of the Promela
model that fully models omitting out the memory barrier that my
rcu_nest32.[hc] implementation omits.  (It is possible to partially
model removal of other memory barriers via #if 0, but to fully model
would need to enumerate the permutations as shown on lines 231-257.)

> In your model, this is not detected, because eventually all readers will
> execute, and only then the writer will be able to update the data. But
> in reality, if we run a very busy 4096-cores machines where there is
> always at least one reader active, the the writer will be stuck forever,
> and that's really bad.

Assuming that the reordering is done by the CPU, the write will
eventually get out -- it is stuck in (say) the store buffer, and the
cache line will eventually arrive, and then the value will eventually
be seen by the readers.

We might need a -compiler- barrier, but then again, I am not sure that
we are talking about the same memory barrier -- again, please see
attached lines 231-257 to see which one that I eliminated.

Also, the original model I sent out has a minor bug that prevents it
from fully modeling the nested-read-side case.  The patch below fixes this.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---

 urcu.spin |    6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/formal-model/urcu.spin b/formal-model/urcu.spin
index e5bfff3..611464b 100644
--- a/formal-model/urcu.spin
+++ b/formal-model/urcu.spin
@@ -124,9 +124,13 @@ proctype urcu_reader()
 				break;
 			:: tmp < 4 && reader_progress[tmp] != 0 ->
 				tmp = tmp + 1;
-			:: tmp >= 4 ->
+			:: tmp >= 4 &&
+			   reader_progress[0] == reader_progress[3] ->
 				done = 1;
 				break;
+			:: tmp >= 4 &&
+			   reader_progress[0] != reader_progress[3] ->
+			   	break;
 			od;
 			do
 			:: tmp < 4 && reader_progress[tmp] == 0 ->
-------------- next part --------------
/*
 * urcu_mbmin.spin: Promela code to validate urcu.  See commit number
 *	3a9e6e9df706b8d39af94d2f027210e2e7d4106e of Mathieu Desnoyer's
 *      git archive at git://lttng.org/userspace-rcu.git, but with
 *	memory barriers removed.
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
 * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
 *
 * Copyright (c) 2009 Paul E. McKenney, IBM Corporation.
 */

/* Promela validation variables. */

bit removed = 0;  /* Has RCU removal happened, e.g., list_del_rcu()? */
bit free = 0;     /* Has RCU reclamation happened, e.g., kfree()? */
bit need_mb = 0;  /* =1 says need reader mb, =0 for reader response. */
byte reader_progress[4];
		  /* Count of read-side statement executions. */

/* urcu definitions and variables, taken straight from the algorithm. */

#define RCU_GP_CTR_BIT (1 << 7)
#define RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK (RCU_GP_CTR_BIT - 1)

byte urcu_gp_ctr = 1;
byte urcu_active_readers = 0;

/* Model the RCU read-side critical section. */

proctype urcu_reader()
{
	bit done = 0;
	bit mbok;
	byte tmp;
	byte tmp_removed;
	byte tmp_free;

	/* Absorb any early requests for memory barriers. */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 ->
		need_mb = 0;
	:: 1 -> skip;
	:: 1 -> break;
	od;

	/*
	 * Each pass through this loop executes one read-side statement
	 * from the following code fragment:
	 *
	 *	rcu_read_lock(); [0a]
	 *	rcu_read_lock(); [0b]
	 *	p = rcu_dereference(global_p); [1]
	 *	x = p->data; [2]
	 *	rcu_read_unlock(); [3b]
	 *	rcu_read_unlock(); [3a]
	 *
	 * Because we are modeling a weak-memory machine, these statements
	 * can be seen in any order, the only restriction being that
	 * rcu_read_unlock() cannot precede the corresponding rcu_read_lock().
	 * The placement of the inner rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
	 * is non-deterministic, the above is but one possible placement.
	 * Intestingly enough, this model validates all possible placements
	 * of the inner rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() statements,
	 * with the only constraint being that the rcu_read_lock() must
	 * precede the rcu_read_unlock().
	 *
	 * We also respond to memory-barrier requests, but only if our
	 * execution happens to be ordered.  If the current state is
	 * misordered, we ignore memory-barrier requests.
	 */
	do
	:: 1 ->
		if
		:: reader_progress[0] < 2 -> /* [0a and 0b] */
			tmp = urcu_active_readers;
			if
			:: (tmp & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) == 0 ->
				tmp = urcu_gp_ctr;
				do
				:: (reader_progress[1] +
				    reader_progress[2] +
				    reader_progress[3] == 0) && need_mb == 1 ->
					need_mb = 0;
				:: 1 -> skip;
				:: 1 -> break;
				od;
				urcu_active_readers = tmp;
			 :: else ->
				urcu_active_readers = tmp + 1;
			fi;
			reader_progress[0] = reader_progress[0] + 1;
		:: reader_progress[1] == 0 -> /* [1] */
			tmp_removed = removed;
			reader_progress[1] = 1;
		:: reader_progress[2] == 0 -> /* [2] */
			tmp_free = free;
			reader_progress[2] = 1;
		:: ((reader_progress[0] > reader_progress[3]) &&
		    (reader_progress[3] < 2)) -> /* [3a and 3b] */
			tmp = urcu_active_readers - 1;
			urcu_active_readers = tmp;
			reader_progress[3] = reader_progress[3] + 1;
		:: else -> break;
		fi;

		/* Process memory-barrier requests, if it is safe to do so. */
		atomic {
			mbok = 0;
			tmp = 0;
			do
			:: tmp < 4 && reader_progress[tmp] == 0 ->
				tmp = tmp + 1;
				break;
			:: tmp < 4 && reader_progress[tmp] != 0 ->
				tmp = tmp + 1;
			:: tmp >= 4 &&
			   reader_progress[0] == reader_progress[3] ->
				done = 1;
				break;
			:: tmp >= 4 &&
			   reader_progress[0] != reader_progress[3] ->
			   	break;
			od;
			do
			:: tmp < 4 && reader_progress[tmp] == 0 ->
				tmp = tmp + 1;
			:: tmp < 4 && reader_progress[tmp] != 0 ->
				break;
			:: tmp >= 4 ->
				mbok = 1;
				break;
			od

		}

		if
		:: mbok == 1 ->
			/* We get here if mb processing is safe. */
			do
			:: need_mb == 1 ->
				need_mb = 0;
			:: 1 -> skip;
			:: 1 -> break;
			od;
		:: else -> skip;
		fi;

		/*
		 * Check to see if we have modeled the entire RCU read-side
		 * critical section, and leave if so.
		 */
		if
		:: done == 1 -> break;
		:: else -> skip;
		fi
	od;
	assert((tmp_free == 0) || (tmp_removed == 1));

	/* Process any late-arriving memory-barrier requests. */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 ->
		need_mb = 0;
	:: 1 -> skip;
	:: 1 -> break;
	od;
}

/* Model the RCU update process. */

proctype urcu_updater()
{
	byte tmp;

	/* prior synchronize_rcu(), second counter flip. */
	need_mb = 1; /* mb() A */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 -> skip;
	:: need_mb == 0 -> break;
	od;
	urcu_gp_ctr = urcu_gp_ctr + RCU_GP_CTR_BIT;
	need_mb = 1; /* mb() B */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 -> skip;
	:: need_mb == 0 -> break;
	od;
	do
	:: 1 ->
		if
		:: (urcu_active_readers & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) != 0 &&
		   (urcu_active_readers & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) !=
		   (urcu_gp_ctr & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) ->
			skip;
		:: else -> break;
		fi
	od;
	need_mb = 1; /* mb() C absolutely required by analogy with G */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 -> skip;
	:: need_mb == 0 -> break;
	od;

	/* Removal statement, e.g., list_del_rcu(). */
	removed = 1;

	/* current synchronize_rcu(), first counter flip. */
	need_mb = 1; /* mb() D suggested */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 -> skip;
	:: need_mb == 0 -> break;
	od;
	urcu_gp_ctr = urcu_gp_ctr + RCU_GP_CTR_BIT;
	need_mb = 1;  /* mb() E required if D not present */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 -> skip;
	:: need_mb == 0 -> break;
	od;

	/* current synchronize_rcu(), first-flip check plus second flip. */
	if
	:: 1 ->
		do
		:: 1 ->
			if
			:: (urcu_active_readers & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) != 0 &&
			   (urcu_active_readers & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) !=
			   (urcu_gp_ctr & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) ->
				skip;
			:: else -> break;
			fi;
		od;
		urcu_gp_ctr = urcu_gp_ctr + RCU_GP_CTR_BIT;
	:: 1 ->
		tmp = urcu_gp_ctr;
		urcu_gp_ctr = urcu_gp_ctr + RCU_GP_CTR_BIT;
		do
		:: 1 ->
			if
			:: (urcu_active_readers & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) != 0 &&
			   (urcu_active_readers & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) !=
			   (tmp & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) ->
				skip;
			:: else -> break;
			fi;
		od;
	fi;

	/* current synchronize_rcu(), second counter flip check. */
	need_mb = 1; /* mb() F not required */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 -> skip;
	:: need_mb == 0 -> break;
	od;
	do
	:: 1 ->
		if
		:: (urcu_active_readers & RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) != 0 &&
		   (urcu_active_readers & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) !=
		   (urcu_gp_ctr & ~RCU_GP_CTR_NEST_MASK) ->
			skip;
		:: else -> break;
		fi;
	od;
	need_mb = 1; /* mb() G absolutely required */
	do
	:: need_mb == 1 -> skip;
	:: need_mb == 0 -> break;
	od;

	/* free-up step, e.g., kfree(). */
	free = 1;
}

/*
 * Initialize the array, spawn a reader and an updater.  Because readers
 * are independent of each other, only one reader is needed.
 */

init {
	atomic {
		reader_progress[0] = 0;
		reader_progress[1] = 0;
		reader_progress[2] = 0;
		reader_progress[3] = 0;
		run urcu_reader();
		run urcu_updater();
	}
}
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: urcu_mbmin.sh
Type: application/x-sh
Size: 56 bytes
Desc: urcu_mbmin.sh
URL: <http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20090212/3990ebfb/attachment-0003.sh>


More information about the lttng-dev mailing list