LKMM pull request for v5.17

This series contains documentation and litmus tests for locking, courtesy
 of Boqun Feng.
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 iQJHBAABCgAxFiEEbK7UrM+RBIrCoViJnr8S83LZ+4wFAmHbuDwTHHBhdWxtY2tA
 a2VybmVsLm9yZwAKCRCevxLzctn7jIMCD/9JtJbO7Ljx0QccdNOKNFuyFN36KQym
 q8NCHHDQI6LoemtSAqcfMeYxx49JSWVYyH3si3XDEXpK0rIjn3ZdDv8uwuI5HzQ2
 cJsaChvUMXfJHdQQKtGuOnKskbKzWPr7y1ykD6VRhIjTK/OeB5Uh+8VhPYsjsGKj
 cA3KyELDpHcNmc/HKO7HMQwIusip2hgoLhw+kBcnjxRUkv7B2OnJrAPoHcbZFBH6
 +IQKNr49hWcBfj3KPUpAgeiTn7oEAAj0KBu5awY967IqVcKbBMexIvjpZf0bG1Re
 ojvMcj3QhJoF6KzIT4C5F4gKvU9/Ov3cBAmlvg2RjcxtjFmFkAr69fGQc/ry9LCC
 lri1Kx4JA0IrCRwCdeVO+vJbAsdJciF1SLRZFGpD8TCQ99a99bVA/c36/ynLBfAT
 gGHEBzfv+tQMe6f1bi9eiegJCQdJ89m5NStotNiN9gqMuKiV3cGR/ZxQF2bvMLWB
 PG+LZPibTUZW/dL7qFwmCIA8HokSFFNLd5txN62jN/K9oUmw6zXnGJp4NC7jBGkz
 WSDkxzXwz8/bqKoydsx9pfgr2kCrJBK+QVmninsOXcL80DyqDevRgNPm/7pMF8Bu
 ikRyREtzK1WW3JS6amumK4GVKoyZi5s42mdMc5edCHgH7pj8+m2EitruoDF+pz8C
 Zb4vTgFfhygAmw==
 =3YsU
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Merge tag 'lkmm.2022.01.09a' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu

Pull memory model documentation updates from Paul McKenney:
 "This series contains documentation and litmus tests for locking,
  courtesy of Boqun Feng"

* tag 'lkmm.2022.01.09a' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu:
  tools/memory-model: litmus: Add two tests for unlock(A)+lock(B) ordering
  tools/memory-model: doc: Describe the requirement of the litmus-tests directory
  tools/memory-model: Provide extra ordering for unlock+lock pair on the same CPU

tools/memory-model/Documentation/explanation.txt

@@ -1813,15 +1813,16 @@ spin_trylock() -- we can call these things lock-releases and
 lock-acquires -- have two properties beyond those of ordinary releases
 and acquires.
 
-First, when a lock-acquire reads from a lock-release, the LKMM
-requires that every instruction po-before the lock-release must
-execute before any instruction po-after the lock-acquire.  This would
-naturally hold if the release and acquire operations were on different
-CPUs, but the LKMM says it holds even when they are on the same CPU.
-For example:
+First, when a lock-acquire reads from or is po-after a lock-release,
+the LKMM requires that every instruction po-before the lock-release
+must execute before any instruction po-after the lock-acquire.  This
+would naturally hold if the release and acquire operations were on
+different CPUs and accessed the same lock variable, but the LKMM says
+it also holds when they are on the same CPU, even if they access
+different lock variables.  For example:
 
 	int x, y;
-	spinlock_t s;
+	spinlock_t s, t;
 
 	P0()
 	{
@@ -1830,9 +1831,9 @@ For example:
 		spin_lock(&s);
 		r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
 		spin_unlock(&s);
-		spin_lock(&s);
+		spin_lock(&t);
 		r2 = READ_ONCE(y);
-		spin_unlock(&s);
+		spin_unlock(&t);
 	}
 
 	P1()
@@ -1842,10 +1843,10 @@ For example:
 		WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
 	}
 
-Here the second spin_lock() reads from the first spin_unlock(), and
-therefore the load of x must execute before the load of y.  Thus we
-cannot have r1 = 1 and r2 = 0 at the end (this is an instance of the
-MP pattern).
+Here the second spin_lock() is po-after the first spin_unlock(), and
+therefore the load of x must execute before the load of y, even though
+the two locking operations use different locks.  Thus we cannot have
+r1 = 1 and r2 = 0 at the end (this is an instance of the MP pattern).
 
 This requirement does not apply to ordinary release and acquire
 fences, only to lock-related operations.  For instance, suppose P0()
@@ -1872,13 +1873,13 @@ instructions in the following order:
 
 and thus it could load y before x, obtaining r2 = 0 and r1 = 1.
 
-Second, when a lock-acquire reads from a lock-release, and some other
-stores W and W' occur po-before the lock-release and po-after the
-lock-acquire respectively, the LKMM requires that W must propagate to
-each CPU before W' does.  For example, consider:
+Second, when a lock-acquire reads from or is po-after a lock-release,
+and some other stores W and W' occur po-before the lock-release and
+po-after the lock-acquire respectively, the LKMM requires that W must
+propagate to each CPU before W' does.  For example, consider:
 
 	int x, y;
-	spinlock_t x;
+	spinlock_t s;
 
 	P0()
 	{
@@ -1908,7 +1909,12 @@ each CPU before W' does.  For example, consider:
 
 If r1 = 1 at the end then the spin_lock() in P1 must have read from
 the spin_unlock() in P0.  Hence the store to x must propagate to P2
-before the store to y does, so we cannot have r2 = 1 and r3 = 0.
+before the store to y does, so we cannot have r2 = 1 and r3 = 0.  But
+if P1 had used a lock variable different from s, the writes could have
+propagated in either order.  (On the other hand, if the code in P0 and
+P1 had all executed on a single CPU, as in the example before this
+one, then the writes would have propagated in order even if the two
+critical sections used different lock variables.)
 
 These two special requirements for lock-release and lock-acquire do
 not arise from the operational model.  Nevertheless, kernel developers

tools/memory-model/README

@@ -195,6 +195,18 @@ litmus-tests
 	are listed in litmus-tests/README.  A great deal more litmus
 	tests are available at https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus.
 
+	By "representative", it means the one in the litmus-tests
+	directory is:
+
+		1) simple, the number of threads should be relatively
+		   small and each thread function should be relatively
+		   simple.
+		2) orthogonal, there should be no two litmus tests
+		   describing the same aspect of the memory model.
+		3) textbook, developers can easily copy-paste-modify
+		   the litmus tests to use the patterns on their own
+		   code.
+
 lock.cat
 	Provides a front-end analysis of lock acquisition and release,
 	for example, associating a lock acquisition with the preceding

tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ include "lock.cat"
 (* Release Acquire *)
 let acq-po = [Acquire] ; po ; [M]
 let po-rel = [M] ; po ; [Release]
-let po-unlock-rf-lock-po = po ; [UL] ; rf ; [LKR] ; po
+let po-unlock-lock-po = po ; [UL] ; (po|rf) ; [LKR] ; po
 
 (* Fences *)
 let R4rmb = R \ Noreturn	(* Reads for which rmb works *)
@@ -70,12 +70,12 @@ let rwdep = (dep | ctrl) ; [W]
 let overwrite = co | fr
 let to-w = rwdep | (overwrite & int) | (addr ; [Plain] ; wmb)
 let to-r = addr | (dep ; [Marked] ; rfi)
-let ppo = to-r | to-w | fence | (po-unlock-rf-lock-po & int)
+let ppo = to-r | to-w | fence | (po-unlock-lock-po & int)
 
 (* Propagation: Ordering from release operations and strong fences. *)
 let A-cumul(r) = (rfe ; [Marked])? ; r
 let cumul-fence = [Marked] ; (A-cumul(strong-fence | po-rel) | wmb |
-	po-unlock-rf-lock-po) ; [Marked]
+	po-unlock-lock-po) ; [Marked]
 let prop = [Marked] ; (overwrite & ext)? ; cumul-fence* ;
 	[Marked] ; rfe? ; [Marked]
 

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+C LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, all accesses
+ * in the first must execute before any accesses in the second, even if the
+ * critical sections are protected by different locks.  Note: Even when a
+ * write executes before a read, their memory effects can be reordered from
+ * the viewpoint of another CPU (the kind of reordering allowed by TSO).
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r1;
+
+	spin_lock(s);
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+	spin_unlock(s);
+	spin_lock(t);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	spin_unlock(t);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r2;
+
+	r2 = smp_load_acquire(y);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+}
+
+exists (0:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=1)

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+C MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce
+
+(*
+ * Result: Never
+ *
+ * If two locked critical sections execute on the same CPU, stores in the
+ * first must propagate to each CPU before stores in the second do, even if
+ * the critical sections are protected by different locks.
+ *)
+
+{}
+
+P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
+{
+	spin_lock(s);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
+	spin_unlock(s);
+	spin_lock(t);
+	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
+	spin_unlock(t);
+}
+
+P1(int *x, int *y)
+{
+	int r1;
+	int r2;
+
+	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
+	smp_rmb();
+	r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
+}
+
+exists (1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0)

tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/README

@@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ LB+poonceonces.litmus
 	As above, but with store-release replaced with WRITE_ONCE()
 	and load-acquire replaced with READ_ONCE().
 
+LB+unlocklockonceonce+poacquireonce.litmus
+	Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a
+	load and a store?
+
 MP+onceassign+derefonce.litmus
 	As below, but with rcu_assign_pointer() and an rcu_dereference().
 
@@ -90,6 +94,10 @@ MP+porevlocks.litmus
 	As below, but with the first access of the writer process
 	and the second access of reader process protected by a lock.
 
+MP+unlocklockonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
+	Does a unlock+lock pair provides ordering guarantee between a
+	store and another store?
+
 MP+fencewmbonceonce+fencermbonceonce.litmus
 	Does a smp_wmb() (between the stores) and an smp_rmb() (between
 	the loads) suffice for the message-passing litmus test, where one