[PATCH v2 0/4] riscv: Add Zalasr ISA extension support

[Guo Ren]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 06:59:15PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Xu Lu (4):
> >   riscv: add ISA extension parsing for Zalasr
> >   dt-bindings: riscv: Add Zalasr ISA extension description
> >   riscv: Instroduce Zalasr instructions
> >   riscv: Use Zalasr for smp_load_acquire/smp_store_release
> 
> Informally put, our (Linux) memory consistency model specifies that any
> sequence
> 
>   spin_unlock(s);
>   spin_lock(t);
> 
> behaves "as it provides at least FENCE.TSO ordering between operations
> which precede the UNLOCK+LOCK sequence and operations which follow the
> sequence".  Unless I missing something, the patch set in question breaks
> such ordering property (on RISC-V): for example, a "release" annotation,
> .RL (as in spin_unlock() -> smp_store_release(), after patch #4) paired
> with an "acquire" fence, FENCE R,RW (as could be found in spin_lock() ->
> atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire()) do not provide the specified property.
> 
> I _think some solutions to the issue above include:
> 
>  a) make sure an .RL annotation is always paired with an .AQ annotation
>     and viceversa an .AQ annotation is paired with an .RL annotation
>     (this approach matches the current arm64 approach/implementation);
> 
>  b) on the opposite direction, always pair FENCE R,RW (or occasionally
>     FENCE R,R) with FENCE RW,W (this matches the current approach/the
>     current implementation within riscv);
> 
>  c) mix the previous two solutions (resp., annotations and fences), but
>     make sure to "upgrade" any releases to provide (insert) a FENCE.TSO.
I prefer option c) at first, it has fewer modification and influence.

asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("fence rw, w;\t\nsb %0, 0(%1)\t\n",	\
-			  SB_RL(%0, %1) "\t\nnop\t\n",		\
+			  SB_RL(%0, %1) "\t\n fence.tso;\t\n",	\
			  0, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR, 1)		\
			  : : "r" (v), "r" (p) : "memory");	\

I didn't object option a), and I think it could be done in the future.
Acquire Zalasr extension step by step.

> 
> (a) would align RISC-V and ARM64 (which is a good thing IMO), though it
> is probably the most invasive approach among the three approaches above
> (requiring certain changes to arch/riscv/include/asm/{cmpxchg,atomic}.h,
> which are already relatively messy due to the various ZABHA plus ZACAS
> switches).  Overall, I'm not too exited at the idea of reviewing any of
> those changes, but if the community opts for it, I'll almost definitely
> take a closer look with due calm.  ;-)
> 
>   Andrea
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
>