tools/memory-model: Model smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

The kernel documents smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() the following way:

  "Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that
   an UNLOCK+LOCK pair acts as a full barrier.  This guarantee applies
   if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
   UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable."

Formalize in LKMM the above guarantee by defining (new) mb-links according
to the law:

  ([M] ; po ; [UL] ; (co | po) ; [LKW] ;
	fencerel(After-unlock-lock) ; [M])

where the component ([UL] ; co ; [LKW]) identifies "UNLOCK+LOCK pairs on
the same lock variable" and the component ([UL] ; po ; [LKW]) identifies
"UNLOCK+LOCK pairs executed by the same CPU".

In particular, the LKMM forbids the following two behaviors (the second
litmus test below is based on:

  Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.html

c.f., Section "Tree RCU Grace Period Memory Ordering Building Blocks"):

C after-unlock-lock-same-cpu

(*
 * Result: Never
 *)

{}

P0(spinlock_t *s, spinlock_t *t, int *x, int *y)
{
	int r0;

	spin_lock(s);
	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
	spin_unlock(s);
	spin_lock(t);
	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	spin_unlock(t);
}

P1(int *x, int *y)
{
	int r0;

	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
	smp_mb();
	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}

exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0)

C after-unlock-lock-same-lock-variable

(*
 * Result: Never
 *)

{}

P0(spinlock_t *s, int *x, int *y)
{
	int r0;

	spin_lock(s);
	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	spin_unlock(s);
}

P1(spinlock_t *s, int *y, int *z)
{
	int r0;

	spin_lock(s);
	smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
	r0 = READ_ONCE(*z);
	spin_unlock(s);
}

P2(int *z, int *x)
{
	int r0;

	WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
	smp_mb();
	r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}

exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r0=0 /\ 2:r0=0)
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: parri.andrea@gmail.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203230451.28921-1-paulmck@linux.ibm.comSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.bell

@@ -29,7 +29,8 @@ enum Barriers = 'wmb (*smp_wmb*) ||
 		'sync-rcu (*synchronize_rcu*) ||
 		'before-atomic (*smp_mb__before_atomic*) ||
 		'after-atomic (*smp_mb__after_atomic*) ||
-		'after-spinlock (*smp_mb__after_spinlock*)
+		'after-spinlock (*smp_mb__after_spinlock*) ||
+		'after-unlock-lock (*smp_mb__after_unlock_lock*)
 instructions F[Barriers]
 
 (* Compute matching pairs of nested Rcu-lock and Rcu-unlock *)

tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.cat

@@ -30,7 +30,9 @@ let wmb = [W] ; fencerel(Wmb) ; [W]
 let mb = ([M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M]) |
 	([M] ; fencerel(Before-atomic) ; [RMW] ; po? ; [M]) |
 	([M] ; po? ; [RMW] ; fencerel(After-atomic) ; [M]) |
-	([M] ; po? ; [LKW] ; fencerel(After-spinlock) ; [M])
+	([M] ; po? ; [LKW] ; fencerel(After-spinlock) ; [M]) |
+	([M] ; po ; [UL] ; (co | po) ; [LKW] ;
+		fencerel(After-unlock-lock) ; [M])
 let gp = po ; [Sync-rcu] ; po?
 
 let strong-fence = mb | gp

tools/memory-model/linux-kernel.def

@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ smp_wmb() { __fence{wmb}; }
 smp_mb__before_atomic() { __fence{before-atomic}; }
 smp_mb__after_atomic() { __fence{after-atomic}; }
 smp_mb__after_spinlock() { __fence{after-spinlock}; }
+smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() { __fence{after-unlock-lock}; }
 
 // Exchange
 xchg(X,V)  __xchg{mb}(X,V)