Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:57:59 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:30:08 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 10:54:27AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:36:44 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@gmail.com wrote: > > [...] > > >> >This belongs to the "few style fixes" (in the specific, 80-chars lines) >> >mentioned in the cover letter; I could not resist ;-), but I'll remove >> >them in v3 if you like so. >> >> No problem, just next time it's a bit easier to not mix the really complicated >> stuff (memory model changes) with the really simple stuff (whitespace changes). > > Got it. > > >> >This proposal relies on the generic definition, >> > >> > include/linux/atomic.h , >> > >> >and on the >> > >> > __atomic_op_acquire() >> > __atomic_op_release() >> > >> >above to build the acquire/release atomics (except for the xchg,cmpxchg, >> >where the ACQUIRE_BARRIER is inserted conditionally/on success). >> >> I thought we wanted to use the AQ and RL bits for AMOs, just not for LR/SC >> sequences. IIRC the AMOs are safe with the current memory model, but I might >> just have some version mismatches in my head. > > AMO.aqrl are "safe" w.r.t. the LKMM (as they provide "full-ordering"); OTOH, > AMO.aq and AMO.rl present weaknesses that LKMM (and some kernel developers) > do not "expect". I was probing this issue in: > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151930201102853&w=2 > > (c.f., e.g., test "RISCV-unlock-lock-read-ordering" from that post). > > Quoting from the commit message of my patch 1/2: > > "Referring to the "unlock-lock-read-ordering" test reported below, > Daniel wrote: > > I think an RCpc interpretation of .aq and .rl would in fact > allow the two normal loads in P1 to be reordered [...] > > [...] > > Likewise even if the unlock()/lock() is between two stores. > A control dependency might originate from the load part of > the amoswap.w.aq, but there still would have to be something > to ensure that this load part in fact performs after the store > part of the amoswap.w.rl performs globally, and that's not > automatic under RCpc. > > Simulation of the RISC-V memory consistency model confirmed this > expectation." > > I have just (re)checked these observations against the latest specification, > and my results _confirmed_ these verdicts.
Thanks, I must have just gotten confused about a draft spec or something. I'm pulling these on top or your other memory model related patch. I've renamed the branch "next-mm" to be a bit more descriptiove.
Thanks!
| |