[PATCH 1/5] riscv: Add Zawrs support for spinlocks

[Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>]

> +config RISCV_ISA_ZAWRS
> +	bool "Zawrs extension support for more efficient busy waiting"
> +	depends on RISCV_ALTERNATIVE
> +	default y
> +	help
> +	   Enable the use of the Zawrs (wait for reservation set) extension
> +	   when available.
> +
> +	   The Zawrs extension instructions (wrs.nto and wrs.sto) are used for
> +	   more efficient busy waiting.

Maybe mention that this is about _power_-efficiency?  In the discussion
of the previous iteration, I suggested [1]:

  The Zawrs extension defines a pair of instructions to be used in
  polling loops that allows a core to enter a low-power state and
  wait on a store to a memory location.

(from the Zawrs spec  -- I remain open to review other suggestiongs).


> +#define ZAWRS_WRS_NTO	".long 0x00d00073"
> +#define ZAWRS_WRS_STO	".long 0x01d00073"

In the discussion of the previous iteration, you observed [2]:

  I'd prefer we use insn-def.h to define instructions, rather than
  scatter .long's around, but since this instruction doesn't have
  any inputs, then I guess it's not so important to use insn-def.h.

So that "preference" doesn't apply to the instructions at stake?  Or is
not "important"?  No real objections to barrier.h, trying to understand
the rationale.


> +#define ALT_WRS_NTO()							\
> +	__asm__ __volatile__ (ALTERNATIVE(				\
> +		"nop\n", ZAWRS_WRS_NTO "\n",				\
> +		0, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZAWRS, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZAWRS))
> +#define ALT_WRS_STO()							\
> +	__asm__ __volatile__ (ALTERNATIVE(				\
> +		"nop\n", ZAWRS_WRS_STO "\n",				\
> +		0, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZAWRS, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZAWRS))
> +
>  #define RISCV_FENCE(p, s) \
>  	__asm__ __volatile__ ("fence " #p "," #s : : : "memory")

FYI, this hunk/patch conflicts with Eric's changes [3].


> +#define ___smp_load_reservedN(attr, ptr)				\
> +({									\
> +	typeof(*ptr) ___p1;						\
> +									\
> +	__asm__ __volatile__ ("lr." attr "       %[p], %[c]\n"		\
> +			      : [p]"=&r" (___p1), [c]"+A"(*ptr));	\
> +	___p1;								\
> +})
> +
> +#define __smp_load_reserved_relaxed(ptr)				\
> +({									\
> +	typeof(*ptr) ___p1;						\
> +									\
> +	if (sizeof(*ptr) == sizeof(int))				\
> +		___p1 = ___smp_load_reservedN("w", ptr);		\
> +	else if (sizeof(*ptr) == sizeof(long))				\
> +		___p1 = ___smp_load_reservedN("d", ptr);		\
> +	else								\
> +		compiletime_assert(0,					\
> +		"Need type compatible with LR/SC instructions for "	\
> +		__stringify(ptr));					\
> +	___p1;								\
> +})

In the discussion of the previous iteration, you observed [2]:

  It's more common to use a switch for these things, [...] something
  like the macros in arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h.  Can we stick
  with that pattern?

Along the same lines (#codingstyle), notice that ___smp_load_reservedN()
would become one of the first uses of the asmSymbolicName syntax in the
arch/riscv/ directory.

So again, why not stick to the common style? something's wrong with it?


> +#define smp_cond_load_relaxed(ptr, cond_expr)				\
> +({									\
> +	typeof(ptr) __PTR = (ptr);					\
> +	__unqual_scalar_typeof(*ptr) VAL;				\
> +									\
> +	VAL = READ_ONCE(*__PTR);					\
> +	if (!cond_expr) {						\
> +		for (;;) {						\
> +			VAL = __smp_load_reserved_relaxed(__PTR);	\
> +			if (cond_expr)					\
> +				break;					\
> +			ALT_WRS_STO();					\
> +		}							\
> +	}								\
> +	(typeof(*ptr))VAL;						\
> +})
> +
> +#define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr)				\
> +({									\
> +	typeof(ptr) __PTR = (ptr);					\
> +	__unqual_scalar_typeof(*ptr) VAL;				\
> +									\
> +	VAL = smp_load_acquire(__PTR);					\
> +	if (!cond_expr) {						\
> +		for (;;) {						\
> +			VAL = __smp_load_reserved_acquire(__PTR);	\
> +			if (cond_expr)					\
> +				break;					\
> +			ALT_WRS_STO();					\
> +		}							\
> +	}								\
> +	(typeof(*ptr))VAL;						\
> +})

In the discussion of the previous iteration, you observed [2]:

  I guess this peeling off of the first iteration is because it's
  expected that the load generated by READ_ONCE() is more efficient
  than lr.w/d?  If we're worried about unnecessary use of lr.w/d,
  then shouldn't we look for a solution that doesn't issue those
  instructions when we don't have the Zawrs extension?

To which Palmer replied (apparently, agreeing with your remarks) [4]:

  I haven't looked at the patch, but I'd expect we NOP out the
  whole LR/WRS sequence?  I don't remember any reason to have the
  load reservation without the WRS,  [...]

Unfortunately, this submission makes no mention to those comments and,
more importantly, to the considerations/tradeoffs which have led you
to submit different changes.  In submitting-patches.rst's words,

  Review comments or questions that do not lead to a code change
  should almost certainly bring about a comment or changelog entry
  so that the next reviewer better understands what is going on.

  Andrea

P.S. BTW, not too far from the previous recommendation/paragraph is:

  When sending a next version, [...]  Notify people that commented
  on your patch about new versions by adding them to the patches CC
  list.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZTE7eUyrb8+J+ORB at andrea
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230524-35efcabbbfd6a1ef83865fb4 at orel
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240217131206.3667544-1-ericchancf at google.com
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/mhng-d92f84d8-03db-4fb1-93c3-0d5bfbe7a796 at palmer-ri-x1c9a