Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] riscv: atomic: Optimize AMO instructions usage

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1616 bytes --]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 12:49:44AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
[...]
> 
> If both the aq and rl bits are set, the atomic memory operation is
> sequentially consistent and cannot be observed to happen before any
> earlier memory operations or after any later memory operations in the
> same RISC-V hart and to the same address domain.
>                 "0:     lr.w     %[p],  %[c]\n"
>                 "       sub      %[rc], %[p], %[o]\n"
>                 "       bltz     %[rc], 1f\n".
> -               "       sc.w.rl  %[rc], %[rc], %[c]\n"
> +               "       sc.w.aqrl %[rc], %[rc], %[c]\n"
>                 "       bnez     %[rc], 0b\n"
> -               "       fence    rw, rw\n"
>                 "1:\n"
> So .rl + fence rw, rw is over constraints, only using sc.w.aqrl is more proper.
> 

Can .aqrl order memory accesses before and after it (not against itself,
against each other), i.e. act as a full memory barrier? For example, can
we end up with u == 1, v == 1, r1 on P0 is 0 and r1 on P1 is 0, for the
following litmus test?

    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)

Regards,
Boqun

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]