test_stack fail on linux/arm64 (clang)

[ivmai]

Build: https://travis-ci.org/github/ivmai/libatomic_ops/jobs/670012675
Source: master (0cb2374)
Compiler: clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4
Target: Linux/arm64 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu)
How to reproduce: configure --enable-assertions && make -j check CFLAGS_EXTRA="-O3" CC=clang
Reproduction rate: ~1/20

[ivmai]

Not reproduced locally with clang-12 (RPi4, Ubuntu 21.04/arm64) on latest master (1668e46), ~100 runs.

[ivmai]

Reproduced on Travis CI (latest master, commit 1668e46): https://app.travis-ci.com/github/ivmai/libatomic_ops/jobs/554045328 (1st test run)

Compiler: clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4
Config: CONF_OPTIONS="--enable-assertions"

Output (test_stack):
Missing list element <...>

[ivmai]

Not reproduced w/o assertions or w/o (-O2 or -O3). Not reproduced with gcc. Not reproduced if AO_STACK_IS_LOCK_FREE.

[ivmai]

Reproduced on latest master (401f7b7)
Compiler: clang version 3.8.1-24 (tags/RELEASE_381/final)
Target: Linux/arm64 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Host: gcc117 (farm)
Occurrence: ~1/45

[ivmai]

Build: https://app.travis-ci.com/github/ivmai/libatomic_ops/jobs/559848368
Source: master (6be0bc8)
Target: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Compiler: clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4
Config: CFLAGS_EXTRA="-O3 -D N_EXPERIMENTS=10" CONF_OPTIONS="--enable-assertions"
Output (test_stack):
Failed - nothing to pop
Use almost-lock-free implementation

[ivmai]

Reproduced on gcc117 (farm).
Source: master (6be0bc8)
Compiler: clang version 3.8.1-24 (tags/RELEASE_381/final)
Target: Linux/arm64 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu)
How to: ./configure --enable-assertions && make -j check CFLAGS_EXTRA="-D N_EXPERIMENTS=2" CC=clang
Occurrence: ~1/10

Also reproduced with: clang -O3 -D N_EXPERIMENTS=2 -I src tests/test_stack.c src/*.c -lpthread
(if make -j check is running repeatedly in parallel)

Output (test_stack):
Use almost-lock-free implementation
Missing list element <...>

[ivmai]

Also, maybe the existing fix is not correct: 7ce7da4

[ivmai]

I've reviewed the code in test_stack.c - I don't see any bug with the test code.

[ivmai]

After preprocessing of atomic_ops_stack.c, the code looks like:

  void AO_stack_push_explicit_aux_release(volatile AO_t *list, AO_t *x, AO_stack_aux *a)
  {
    AO_t x_bits = (AO_t)x;
    AO_t next;
  retry:
    {
      AO_t entry1 = AO_load(&a->AO_stack_bl[0]);
      AO_t entry2 = AO_load(&a->AO_stack_bl[1]);
      if (entry1 == x_bits || entry2 == x_bits) {
        ++x_bits;
        if ((x_bits & 7) == 0)
          x_bits = (AO_t)x;
        goto retry;
      }
    }

    do {
        next = AO_load(list);
        *x = next;
    } while (!AO_compare_and_swap_release(list, next, x_bits));
  }

  AO_t *AO_stack_pop_explicit_aux_acquire(volatile AO_t *list, AO_stack_aux *a)
  {
    unsigned i;
    int j = 0;
    AO_t first;
    AO_t *first_ptr;
    AO_t next;

  retry:
    first = AO_load(list);
    if (0 == first) return 0;

    for (i = 0;;) {
      if (AO_compare_and_swap_acquire(a->AO_stack_bl+i, 0, first))
        break;
      if (++i >= 2) {
        i = 0;
        AO_pause(++j);
      }
    }
    assert(a->AO_stack_bl[i] == first);
    if (first != AO_load(list)) { /* or AO_load_acquire as WA for powerpc */
      AO_store_release(a->AO_stack_bl+i, 0);
      goto retry;
    }

    first_ptr = (AO_t *)(first & ~7);
    next = AO_load(first_ptr);
    if (!AO_compare_and_swap_release(list, first, next)) {
      AO_store_release(a->AO_stack_bl+i, 0);
      goto retry;
    }

    assert(*list != first);
    AO_store_release(a->AO_stack_bl+i, 0);
    return first_ptr;
  }

[ivmai]

Hello @hboehm,
Could you please give some hints regarding this test failure?
It relates to almost-non-blocking implementation. I don't see any issue in test_stack.c code itself.

Some questions (based on the preprocessed code above):

1. stack_push: AO_t entry1 = AO_load(&a->AO_stack_bl[0]): is no acq barrier OK?
2. stack_push: while (!AO_compare_and_swap_release(list, next, x_bits)): isn't it better to goto retry on CAS fail?
3. stack_push: do { ... : what would happen if a long pause occurs between ensuring entry != x_bits and next = AO_load(list)?
4. stack_pop: first = AO_load(list): is no acq barrier OK?
5. Once I saw violation of assert(*list != first): is this possible provided the AO primitives are correct?

PS. I haven't looked into the generated code yet (unfortunately I managed to reproduced it only with clang 3.8).

[ivmai]

  if (AO_EXPECT_FALSE(first != AO_load_acquire(list)))
                   /* Workaround test failure on AIX, at least, by */

Removing this W/A (AO_load_acquire -> AO_load) in AO_stack_pop_explicit_aux_acquire leads to almost 100% violation in assert(*list != first).

[ivmai]

No test failure after W/A commit c664a61
But is there any better fix?

[ivmai]

Hello @hboehm,
Do you have any comment on this issue? I did not see the fail after the W/A. I could close the issue or leave it open for future investigation