Adding upstream version 6.1.76.upstream/6.1.76

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

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 000000000..26554b1c5
--- /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.