[PATCH v2 07/10] riscv: Improve amoswap.X use in xchg()

[Andrea Parri]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 03:03:44PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> xchg() uses amoswap.X instructions from Zabha but still uses
> the LR/SC acquire/release semantics which require barriers.
> 
> Let's improve that by using proper amoswap acquire/release semantics in
> order to avoid any of those barriers.
> 
> Suggested-by: Andrea Parri <andrea at rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti at rivosinc.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 35 +++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> index eb35e2d30a97..0e57d5fbf227 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@
>  #include <asm/fence.h>
>  #include <asm/alternative.h>
>  
> -#define __arch_xchg_masked(sc_sfx, swap_sfx, prepend, sc_append,	\
> -			   swap_append, r, p, n)			\
> +#define __arch_xchg_masked(sc_sfx, swap_sfx, sc_prepend, sc_append,	\
> +			   r, p, n)					\
>  ({									\
>  	__label__ zabha, end;						\
>  									\
> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
>  	ulong __rc;							\
>  									\
>  	__asm__ __volatile__ (						\
> -	       prepend							\
> +	       sc_prepend							\
>  	       "0:	lr.w %0, %2\n"					\
>  	       "	and  %1, %0, %z4\n"				\
>  	       "	or   %1, %1, %z3\n"				\
> @@ -48,9 +48,7 @@
>  zabha:									\
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZABHA)) {			\
>  		__asm__ __volatile__ (					\
> -			prepend						\
>  			"	amoswap" swap_sfx " %0, %z2, %1\n"	\
> -			swap_append						\
>  			: "=&r" (r), "+A" (*(p))			\
>  			: "rJ" (n)					\
>  			: "memory");					\
> @@ -58,19 +56,17 @@ zabha:									\
>  end:;									\
>  })
>  
> -#define __arch_xchg(sfx, prepend, append, r, p, n)			\
> +#define __arch_xchg(sfx, r, p, n)					\
>  ({									\
>  	__asm__ __volatile__ (						\
> -		prepend							\
>  		"	amoswap" sfx " %0, %2, %1\n"			\
> -		append							\
>  		: "=r" (r), "+A" (*(p))					\
>  		: "r" (n)						\
>  		: "memory");						\
>  })
>  
> -#define _arch_xchg(ptr, new, sc_sfx, swap_sfx, prepend,			\
> -		   sc_append, swap_append)				\
> +#define _arch_xchg(ptr, new, sc_sfx, swap_sfx,				\
> +		   sc_prepend, sc_append)				\
>  ({									\
>  	__typeof__(ptr) __ptr = (ptr);					\
>  	__typeof__(*(__ptr)) __new = (new);				\
> @@ -79,21 +75,19 @@ end:;									\
>  	switch (sizeof(*__ptr)) {					\
>  	case 1:								\
>  		__arch_xchg_masked(sc_sfx, ".b" swap_sfx,		\
> -				   prepend, sc_append, swap_append,	\
> +				   sc_prepend, sc_append,		\
>  				   __ret, __ptr, __new);		\
>  		break;							\
>  	case 2:								\
>  		__arch_xchg_masked(sc_sfx, ".h" swap_sfx,		\
> -				   prepend, sc_append, swap_append,	\
> +				   sc_prepend, sc_append,		\
>  				   __ret, __ptr, __new);		\
>  		break;							\
>  	case 4:								\
> -		__arch_xchg(".w" swap_sfx, prepend, swap_append,	\
> -			      __ret, __ptr, __new);			\
> +		__arch_xchg(".w" swap_sfx,  __ret, __ptr, __new);	\
>  		break;							\
>  	case 8:								\
> -		__arch_xchg(".d" swap_sfx, prepend, swap_append,	\
> -			      __ret, __ptr, __new);			\
> +		__arch_xchg(".d" swap_sfx,  __ret, __ptr, __new);	\
>  		break;							\
>  	default:							\
>  		BUILD_BUG();						\
> @@ -102,17 +96,16 @@ end:;									\
>  })
>  
>  #define arch_xchg_relaxed(ptr, x)					\
> -	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, "", "", "", "", "")
> +	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, "", "", "", "")
>  
>  #define arch_xchg_acquire(ptr, x)					\
> -	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, "", "", "",					\
> -		   RISCV_ACQUIRE_BARRIER, RISCV_ACQUIRE_BARRIER)
> +	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, "", ".aq", "", RISCV_ACQUIRE_BARRIER)
>  
>  #define arch_xchg_release(ptr, x)					\
> -	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, "", "", RISCV_RELEASE_BARRIER, "", "")
> +	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, "", ".rl", RISCV_RELEASE_BARRIER, "")
>  
>  #define arch_xchg(ptr, x)						\
> -	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, ".rl", ".aqrl", "", RISCV_FULL_BARRIER, "")
> +	_arch_xchg(ptr, x, ".rl", ".aqrl", "", RISCV_FULL_BARRIER)

I actually see no reason for this patch, please see also my remarks
/question on patch #4.

  Andrea