[PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32

[Boqun Feng]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:22:35PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:01:41PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > u32 a = 0x55aa66bb;
> > > u16 *ptr = &a;
> > >
> > > CPU0                       CPU1
> > > =========             =========
> > > xchg16(ptr, new)     while(1)
> > >                                     WRITE_ONCE(*(ptr + 1), x);
> > >
> > > When we use lr.w/sc.w implement xchg16, it'll cause CPU0 deadlock.
> >
> > Then I think your LL/SC is broken.
> No, it's not broken LR.W/SC.W. Quote <8.3 Eventual Success of
> Store-Conditional Instructions>:
> 
> "As a consequence of the eventuality guarantee, if some harts in an
> execution environment are
> executing constrained LR/SC loops, and no other harts or devices in
> the execution environment
> execute an unconditional store or AMO to that reservation set, then at
> least one hart will
> eventually exit its constrained LR/SC loop. By contrast, if other
> harts or devices continue to
> write to that reservation set, it is not guaranteed that any hart will
> exit its LR/SC loop."
> 
> So I think it's a feature of LR/SC. How does the above code (also use
> ll.w/sc.w to implement xchg16) running on arm64?
> 
> 1: ldxr
>     eor
>     cbnz ... 2f
>     stxr
>     cbnz ... 1b   // I think it would deadlock for arm64.
> 
> "LL/SC fwd progress" which you have mentioned could guarantee stxr
> success? How hardware could do that?
> 

Actually, "old" riscv standard does provide fwd progress ;-) In

	https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/riscv-spec-v2.2.pdf

Section "7.2 Load-Reserved/Store-Conditional Instructions":

"""
One advantage of CAS is that it guarantees that some hart eventually
makes progress, whereas an LR/SC atomic sequence could livelock
indefinitely on some systems. To avoid this concern, we added an
architectural guarantee of forward progress to LR/SC atomic sequences.
The restrictions on LR/SC sequence contents allows an implementation to
**capture a cache line on the LR and complete the LR/SC sequence by
holding off remote cache interventions for a bounded short time**.
"""

The guarantee is removed later due to "Earlier versions of this
specification imposed a stronger starvation-freedom guarantee. However,
the weaker livelock-freedom guarantee is sufficient to implement the C11
and C++11 languages, and is substantially easier to provide in some
microarchitectural styles."

But I take it as an example that hardware can guarantee this.

Regards,
Boqun

> >
> > That also means you really don't want to build super complex locking
> > primitives on top, because that live-lock will percolate through.
> >
> > Step 1 would be to get your architecute fixed such that it can provide
> > fwd progress guarantees for LL/SC. Otherwise there's absolutely no point
> > in building complex systems with it.
> --
> Best Regards
>  Guo Ren
> 
> ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/