From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:05:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180305190540.GA4531@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1520274276-21871-1-git-send-email-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 07:24:36PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Atomics present the same issue with locking: release and acquire
> variants need to be strengthened to meet the constraints defined
> by the Linux-kernel memory consistency model [1].
>
> Atomics present a further issue: implementations of atomics such
> as atomic_cmpxchg() and atomic_add_unless() rely on LR/SC pairs,
> which do not give full-ordering with .aqrl; for example, current
> implementations allow the "lr-sc-aqrl-pair-vs-full-barrier" test
> below to end up with the state indicated in the "exists" clause.
>
> In order to "synchronize" LKMM and RISC-V's implementation, this
> commit strengthens the implementations of the atomics operations
> by replacing .rl and .aq with the use of ("lightweigth") fences,
> and by replacing .aqrl LR/SC pairs in sequences such as:
>
> 0: lr.w.aqrl %0, %addr
> bne %0, %old, 1f
> ...
> sc.w.aqrl %1, %new, %addr
> bnez %1, 0b
> 1:
>
> with sequences of the form:
>
> 0: lr.w %0, %addr
> bne %0, %old, 1f
> ...
> sc.w.rl %1, %new, %addr /* SC-release */
> bnez %1, 0b
> fence rw, rw /* "full" fence */
> 1:
>
> following Daniel's suggestion.
>
> These modifications were validated with simulation of the RISC-V
> memory consistency model.
>
> C lr-sc-aqrl-pair-vs-full-barrier
>
> {}
>
> P0(int *x, int *y, atomic_t *u)
> {
> int r0;
> int r1;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(u, 0, 1);
> r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> }
>
> P1(int *x, int *y, atomic_t *v)
> {
> int r0;
> int r1;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(v, 0, 1);
> r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> }
>
> exists (u=1 /\ v=1 /\ 0:r1=0 /\ 1:r1=0)
>
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151930201102853&w=2
> https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/hKywNHBkAXM
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151633436614259&w=2
>
> Suggested-by: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
> Cc: Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>
> Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
> Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
[...]
> +static __always_inline \
> +c_t atomic##prefix##_xchg_release(atomic##prefix##_t *v, c_t n) \
> +{ \
> + return __xchg_acquire(&(v->counter), n, size); \
> +} \
[...]
> +static __always_inline \
> +c_t atomic##prefix##_cmpxchg_release(atomic##prefix##_t *v, \
> + c_t o, c_t n) \
> +{ \
> + return __cmpxchg_acquire(&(v->counter), o, n, size); \
> +} \
These better be _release in v2 ...
Andrea
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-05 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-05 18:24 [RFC PATCH 2/2] riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences Andrea Parri
2018-03-05 19:05 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180305190540.GA4531@andrea \
--to=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=albert@sifive.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox