From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
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: [PATCH v2 2/2] riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:57:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180309165758.GA24626@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1803091129420.2256-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:39:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, 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)
>
> There's another aspect to this imposed by the LKMM, and I'm not sure
> whether your patch addresses it. You add a fence after the cmpxchg
> operation but nothing before it. So what would happen with the
> following litmus test (which the LKMM forbids)?
Available RISC-V memory model formalizations forbid it; an intuitive
explanation could probably be derived by paralleling the argument for
arm64, as pointed out by Daniel at:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151994289015267&w=2
Andrea
>
> C SB-atomic_cmpxchg-mb
>
> {}
>
> P0(int *x, int *y)
> {
> int r0;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(y, 0, 0);
> }
>
> P1(int *x, int *y)
> {
> int r1;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> smp_mb();
> r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> }
>
> exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=0)
>
> This is yet another illustration showing that full fences are stronger
> than cominations of release + acquire.
>
> Alan Stern
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-09 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-09 12:13 [PATCH v2 2/2] riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences Andrea Parri
2018-03-09 16:39 ` Alan Stern
2018-03-09 16:57 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2018-03-09 17:56 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2018-03-09 18:36 ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-09 18:54 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2018-03-09 21:30 ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-09 22:57 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2018-03-10 0:21 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-03-10 14:18 ` Andrea Parri
2018-03-12 6:13 ` Boqun Feng
2018-03-13 13:27 ` Luc Maranget
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=20180309165758.GA24626@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).