On 07.03.2024 12:01, Oleksii wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-03-07 at 11:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.03.2024 11:35, Oleksii wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-03-06 at 15:56 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.02.2024 18:38, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>>> The header was taken from Linux kernl 6.4.0-rc1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Addionally, were updated:
>>>>> * add emulation of {cmp}xchg for 1/2 byte types using 32-bit
>>>>> atomic
>>>>> access.
>>>>> * replace tabs with spaces
>>>>> * replace __* variale with *__
>>>>> * introduce generic version of xchg_* and cmpxchg_*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Implementation of 4- and 8-byte cases were left as it is done
>>>>> in
>>>>> Linux kernel as according to the RISC-V spec:
>>>>> ```
>>>>> Table A.5 ( only part of the table was copied here )
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux Construct RVWMO Mapping
>>>>> atomic <op> relaxed amo<op>.{w|d}
>>>>> atomic <op> acquire amo<op>.{w|d}.aq
>>>>> atomic <op> release amo<op>.{w|d}.rl
>>>>> atomic <op> amo<op>.{w|d}.aqrl
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux Construct RVWMO LR/SC Mapping
>>>>> atomic <op> relaxed loop: lr.{w|d}; <op>; sc.{w|d}; bnez
>>>>> loop
>>>>> atomic <op> acquire loop: lr.{w|d}.aq; <op>; sc.{w|d}; bnez
>>>>> loop
>>>>> atomic <op> release loop: lr.{w|d}; <op>; sc.{w|d}.aqrl∗ ;
>>>>> bnez
>>>>> loop OR
>>>>> fence.tso; loop: lr.{w|d}; <op>;
>>>>> sc.{w|d}∗ ;
>>>>> bnez loop
>>>>> atomic <op> loop: lr.{w|d}.aq; <op>; sc.{w|d}.aqrl;
>>>>> bnez
>>>>> loop
Note the load and store forms mentioned here. How would ...
>>>>> The Linux mappings for release operations may seem stronger
>>>>> than
>>>>> necessary,
>>>>> but these mappings are needed to cover some cases in which
>>>>> Linux
>>>>> requires
>>>>> stronger orderings than the more intuitive mappings would
>>>>> provide.
>>>>> In particular, as of the time this text is being written, Linux
>>>>> is
>>>>> actively
>>>>> debating whether to require load-load, load-store, and store-
>>>>> store
>>>>> orderings
>>>>> between accesses in one critical section and accesses in a
>>>>> subsequent critical
>>>>> section in the same hart and protected by the same
>>>>> synchronization
>>>>> object.
>>>>> Not all combinations of FENCE RW,W/FENCE R,RW mappings with
>>>>> aq/rl
>>>>> mappings
>>>>> combine to provide such orderings.
>>>>> There are a few ways around this problem, including:
>>>>> 1. Always use FENCE RW,W/FENCE R,RW, and never use aq/rl. This
>>>>> suffices
>>>>> but is undesirable, as it defeats the purpose of the aq/rl
>>>>> modifiers.
>>>>> 2. Always use aq/rl, and never use FENCE RW,W/FENCE R,RW. This
>>>>> does
>>>>> not
>>>>> currently work due to the lack of load and store opcodes
>>>>> with aq
>>>>> and rl
>>>>> modifiers.
>>>>
>>>> As before I don't understand this point. Can you give an example
>>>> of
>>>> what
>>>> sort of opcode / instruction is missing?
>>> If I understand the spec correctly then l{b|h|w|d} and s{b|h|w|d}
>>> instructions don't have aq or rl annotation.
>>
>> How would load insns other that LR and store insns other than SC come
>> into play here?
>
> This part of the spec. is not only about LR and SC which cover Load-
> Exclusive and Store-Exclusive cases, but also about non-Exclusive cases
> for each l{b|h|w|d} and s{b|h|w|d} are used.
... the spec (obviously covering other forms, too) be relevant when
reasoning whether just suffixes or actual barrier insns need using?
Jan
