Hi Andrii,

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:50:30PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded.litmus b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded.litmus
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..558f054fb0b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded.litmus

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+C bpf-rb+1p1c+bounded
+
+(*
+ * Result: Always
+ *
+ * This litmus test validates BPF ring buffer implementation under the
+ * following assumptions:
+ * - 1 producer;
+ * - 1 consumer;
+ * - ring buffer has capacity for only 1 record.
+ *
+ * Expectations:
+ * - 1 record pushed into ring buffer;
+ * - 0 or 1 element is consumed.
+ * - no failures.
+ *)
+
+{
+     atomic_t dropped;
+}
+
+P0(int *lenFail, int *len1, int *cx, int *px)
+{
+     int *rLenPtr;
+     int rLen;
+     int rPx;
+     int rCx;
+     int rFail;
+
+     rFail = 0;
+
+     rCx = smp_load_acquire(cx);
+     rPx = smp_load_acquire(px);

Is it possible for you to put some more comments around which ACQUIRE is
paired with which RELEASE? And, in general more comments around the reason
for a certain memory barrier and what pairs with what. In the kernel sources,
the barriers needs a comment anyway.

This was the comment earlier that was missed.

quoted

quoted

+     if (rCx < rPx) {
+             if (rCx == 0) {
+                     rLenPtr = len1;
+             } else {
+                     rLenPtr = lenFail;
+                     rFail = 1;
+             }
+
+             rLen = smp_load_acquire(rLenPtr);
+             if (rLen == 0) {
+                     rFail = 1;
+             } else if (rLen == 1) {
+                     rCx = rCx + 1;
+                     smp_store_release(cx, rCx);
+             }
+     }
+}
+
+P1(int *lenFail, int *len1, spinlock_t *rb_lock, int *px, int *cx, atomic_t *dropped)
+{
+     int rPx;
+     int rCx;
+     int rFail;
+     int *rLenPtr;
+
+     rFail = 0;
+
+     rCx = smp_load_acquire(cx);
+     spin_lock(rb_lock);
+
+     rPx = *px;
+     if (rPx - rCx >= 1) {
+             atomic_inc(dropped);

Why does 'dropped' need to be atomic if you are always incrementing under a
lock?

It doesn't, strictly speaking, but making it atomic in litmus test was
just more convenient, especially that I initially also had a lock-less
variant of this algorithm.

Ok, that's fine.

quoted

quoted

+             spin_unlock(rb_lock);
+     } else {
+             if (rPx == 0) {
+                     rLenPtr = len1;
+             } else {
+                     rLenPtr = lenFail;
+                     rFail = 1;
+             }
+
+             *rLenPtr = -1;

Clarify please the need to set the length intermittently to -1. Thanks.

This corresponds to setting a "busy bit" in kernel implementation.
These litmus tests are supposed to be correlated with in-kernel
implementation, I'm not sure I want to maintain extra 4 copies of
comments here and in kernel code. Especially for 2-producer cases,
there are 2 identical P1 and P2, which is unfortunate, but I haven't
figured out how to have a re-usable pieces of code with litmus tests
:)

I disagree that comments related to memory ordering are optional. IMHO, the
documentation should be clear from a memory ordering standpoint. After all,
good Documentation/ always clarifies something / some concept to the reader
right? :-) Please have mercy on me, I am just trying to learn *your*
Documentation ;-)

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+2p1c+bounded.litmus b/Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+2p1c+bounded.litmus

[...]

quoted

quoted

+P1(int *lenFail, int *len1, spinlock_t *rb_lock, int *px, int *cx, atomic_t *dropped)
+{
+     int rPx;
+     int rCx;
+     int rFail;
+     int *rLenPtr;
+
+     rFail = 0;
+     rLenPtr = lenFail;
+
+     rCx = smp_load_acquire(cx);
+     spin_lock(rb_lock);
+
+     rPx = *px;
+     if (rPx - rCx >= 1) {
+             atomic_inc(dropped);
+             spin_unlock(rb_lock);
+     } else {
+             if (rPx == 0) {
+                     rLenPtr = len1;
+             } else if (rPx == 1) {
+                     rLenPtr = len1;
+             } else {
+                     rLenPtr = lenFail;
+                     rFail = 1;
+             }
+
+             *rLenPtr = -1;
+             smp_store_release(px, rPx + 1);
+
+             spin_unlock(rb_lock);
+
+             smp_store_release(rLenPtr, 1);

I ran a test replacing the last 2 statements above with the following and it
still works:

                spin_unlock(rb_lock);
                WRITE_ONCE(*rLenPtr, 1);

Wouldn't you expect the test to catch an issue? The spin_unlock is already a
RELEASE barrier.

Well, apparently it's not an issue and WRITE_ONCE would work as well
:) My original version actually used WRITE_ONCE here. See [0] and
discussion in [1] after which I removed all the WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE
in favor of store_release/load_acquire for consistency.

  [0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200513192532.4058934-3-andriin@fb.com/
  [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200513192532.4058934-2-andriin@fb.com/

Huh. So you are replacing the test to use WRITE_ONCE instead? Why did you
favor the acquire/release memory barriers over the _ONCE annotations, if that
was not really needed then?

quoted

Suggestion: It is hard to review the patch because it is huge, it would be
good to split this up into 4 patches for each of the tests. But upto you :)

Those 4 files are partial copies of each other, not sure splitting
them actually would be easier. If anyone else thinks the same, though,
I'll happily split.

I personally disagree. It would be much easier IMHO to review 4 different
files since some of them are also quite dissimilar. I frequently keep jumping
between diffs to find a different file and it makes the review that much
harder. But anything the LKMM experts decide in this regard is acceptable to me :)

thanks,

 - Joel