[PATCH] riscv/barrier: Define __smp_{store_release,load_acquire}

[parri.andrea@gmail.com (Andrea Parri)]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 02:20:37PM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> On 2/27/2018 10:21 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:24:11 PST (-0800), parri.andrea at gmail.com wrote:
> >> Introduce __smp_{store_release,load_acquire}, and rely on the generic
> >> definitions for smp_{store_release,load_acquire}. This avoids the use
> >> of full ("rw,rw") fences on SMP.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> ?arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >> ?1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
> >> index 5510366d169ae..d4628e4b3a5ea 100644
> >> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
> >> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
> >> @@ -38,6 +38,21 @@
> >> ?#define __smp_rmb()??? RISCV_FENCE(r,r)
> >> ?#define __smp_wmb()??? RISCV_FENCE(w,w)
> >>
> >> +#define __smp_store_release(p, v)??????????????????? \
> >> +do {??????????????????????????????????? \
> >> +??? compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);??????????????? \
> >> +??? RISCV_FENCE(rw,w);??????????????????????? \
> >> +??? WRITE_ONCE(*p, v);??????????????????????? \
> >> +} while (0)
> >> +
> >> +#define __smp_load_acquire(p)??????????????????????? \
> >> +({??????????????????????????????????? \
> >> +??? typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p);??????????????? \
> >> +??? compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);??????????????? \
> >> +??? RISCV_FENCE(r,rw);??????????????????????? \
> >> +??? ___p1;??????????????????????????????? \
> >> +})
> >> +
> >> ?/*
> >> ? * This is a very specific barrier: it's currently only used in two places in
> >> ? * the kernel, both in the scheduler.? See include/linux/spinlock.h for the two
> > 
> > I'm adding Daniel just in case I misunderstood what's going on here,
> > but these look good to me.  As this is a non-trivial memory model
> > change I'm going to let it bake in linux-next for a bit just so it
> > gets some visibility.
> 
> Looks good to me too.  In particular, it also covers the
> Write->release(p)->acquire(p)->Write ordering that we were debating
> in the broader LKMM thread, which is good.

Yeah, I think that other changes would be required to completely cover
the issues debated in that thread: I plan to prepare and to post a new
series/RFC to address those (unless someone precedes me of course ;-).

  Andrea


> 
> Dan
> 
> > 
> > Thanks