lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:08:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So if this is purely a RISC-V thing,

Just to clarify, I think the current RISC-V thing is stonger than
PowerPC, but maybe not as strong as say ARM64, but RISC-V memory
ordering is still somewhat hazy to me.

Specifically, the sequence:

/* critical section s */
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
FENCE RW, W
WRITE_ONCE(s.lock, 0); /* store S */
AMOSWAP %0, 1, r.lock /* store R */
FENCE R, RW
WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
/* critical section r */

fully separates section s from section r, as in RW->RW ordering
(possibly not as strong as smp_mb() though), while on PowerPC it would
only impose TSO ordering between sections.

The AMOSWAP is a RmW and as such matches the W from the RW->W fence,
similarly it marches the R from the R->RW fence, yielding an:

RW-> W
RmW
R ->RW

ordering. It's the stores S and R that can be re-ordered, but not the
sections themselves (same on PowerPC and many others).

Clarification from a RISC-V enabled person would be appreciated.

> then I think it's entirely reasonable to
>
> spin_unlock(&r);
> spin_lock(&s);
>
> cannot be reordered.

I'm obviously completely in favour of that :-)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-09 09:28    [W:0.101 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site