Re: [tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 08:01:14AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:03:18PM -0400, Dan Lustig wrote:
> > On 9/9/2021 9:35 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 09:25:30AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > >> 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).

> > I agree with Will here.  If the AMOSWAP above is actually implemented with
> > a RISC-V AMO, then the two critical sections will be separated as if RW,RW,
> > as Peter described.  If instead it's implemented using LR/SC, then RISC-V
> 
> Just out of curiosity, in the following code, can the store S and load L
> be reordered?
> 
> 	WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); // store S
> 	FENCE RW, W
>  	WRITE_ONCE(s.lock, 0); // unlock(s)
>  	AMOSWAP %0, 1, s.lock  // lock(s)
> 	FENCE R, RW
> 	r1 = READ_ONCE(y); // load L
> 
> I think they can, because neither "FENCE RW, W" nor "FENCE R, RW" order
> them.

I'm confused by your argument, per the above quoted section, those
fences and the AMO combine into a RW,RW ordering which is (as per the
later clarification) multi-copy-atomic, aka smp_mb().

As such, S and L are not allowed to be re-ordered in the given scenario.

> Note that the reordering is allowed in LKMM, because unlock-lock
> only need to be as strong as RCtso.

Risc-V is strictly stronger than required in this instance. Given the
current lock implementation. Daniel pointed out that if the atomic op
were LL/SC based instead of AMO it would end up being RCtso.