From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932595AbeBVNk2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:40:28 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:52288 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932414AbeBVNk0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:40:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:40:04 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Andrea Parri Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Daniel Lustig , Alan Stern , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Nicholas Piggin , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , "Paul E. McKenney" , Akira Yokosawa , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv/locking: Strengthen spin_lock() and spin_unlock() Message-ID: <20180222134004.GN25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1519301990-11766-1-git-send-email-parri.andrea@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1519301990-11766-1-git-send-email-parri.andrea@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 01:19:50PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote: > C unlock-lock-read-ordering > > {} > /* s initially owned by P1 */ > > P0(int *x, int *y) > { > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > smp_wmb(); > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); > } > > P1(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *s) > { > int r0; > int r1; > > r0 = READ_ONCE(*y); > spin_unlock(s); > spin_lock(s); > r1 = READ_ONCE(*y); > } > > exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) > > RISCV RISCV-unlock-lock-read-ordering > { > 0:x2=x; 0:x4=y; > 1:x2=y; 1:x4=x; 1:x6=s; > s=1; > } > P0 | P1 ; > ori x1,x0,1 | lw x1,0(x2) ; > sw x1,0(x2) | amoswap.w.rl x0,x0,(x6) ; > fence w,w | ori x5,x0,1 ; > ori x3,x0,1 | amoswap.w.aq x0,x5,(x6) ; > sw x3,0(x4) | lw x3,0(x4) ; > exists > (1:x1=1 /\ 1:x3=0) So I would indeed expect this to be forbidden. Could someone please explain how this could be allowed? > C unlock-lock-write-ordering > > {} > /* s initially owned by P0 */ > > P0(int *x, int *y, spinlock_t *s) > { > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > spin_unlock(s); > spin_lock(s); > WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); > } > > P1(int *x, int *y) > { > int r0; > int r1; > > r0 = READ_ONCE(*y); > smp_rmb(); > r1 = READ_ONCE(*y); > } > > exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=0) > > RISCV RISCV-unlock-lock-write-ordering > { > 0:x2=x; 0:x4=y; 0:x6=s; > 1:x2=y; 1:x4=x; > s=1; > } > P0 | P1 ; > ori x1,x0,1 | lw x1,0(x2) ; > sw x1,0(x2) | fence r,r ; > amoswap.w.rl x0,x0,(x6) | lw x3,0(x4) ; > ori x5,x0,1 | ; > amoswap.w.aq x0,x5,(x6) | ; > ori x3,x0,1 | ; > sw x3,0(x4) | ; > exists > (1:x1=1 /\ 1:x3=0) And here I think the RISCV conversion is flawed, there should be a ctrl dependency. The second store-word in P0 should depend on the result of amoswap.w.aq being 0. (strictly speaking there should be a ctrl-dep in the read example too, except it'd be pointless for ordering reads, so I accept it being left out) Again, I cannot see how this could be allowed.