[External] Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] riscv: Add Zalasr ISA extension support
Xu Lu
luxu.kernel at bytedance.com
Thu Sep 18 20:18:25 PDT 2025
Hi Guo Ren,
Thanks for your advice.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:48 AM Guo Ren <guoren at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 12:01:34AM -0400, Guo Ren wrote:
> > 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.
> Another reason is that store-release-to-load-acquire would give out a
> FENCE rw, rw according to RVWMO PPO 7th rule instead of FENCE.TSO, which
> is stricter than the Linux requirement you've mentioned.
The existing implementation of spin_unlock, when followed by
spin_lock, is equal to 'FENCE rw, rw' for operations before
spin_unlock
and after spin_lock:
spin_unlock:
fence rw, w
sd
spin_lock:
amocas
fence r, rw
The store-release semantics in spin_unlock, is used to ensure that
when the other cores can watch the store, they must also watch the
operations before the store, which is a more common case than calling
spin_unlock immediately followed by spin_lock on the same core. And
the existing implementation 'fence rw, w' 'fence r, rw' is stricter
than '.aq' '.rl'. That is why we want to modify it.
I have reimplemented the code and it now looks like the attached text
file. I will send the patch out later.
Best Regards.
Xu Lu
>
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-riscv mailing list
> > linux-riscv at lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
> >
-------------- next part --------------
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | arch_xchg_release | arch_cmpxchg_release | __smp_store_release |
| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | zabha | !zabha | zabha+zacas | !(zabha+zacas) | zalasr | !zalasr |
| rl |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | (fence rw, w) | | (fence rw, w) | | fence rw, w |
| | amoswap.rl | lr.w | amocas.rl | lr.w | s{b|h|w|d}.rl | s{b|h|w|d} |
| | | sc.w.rl | | sc.w.rl | | |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | arch_xchg_acquire | arch_cmpxchg_acquire | __smp_load_acquire |
| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | zabha | !zabha | zabha+zacas | !(zabha+zacas) | zalasr | !zalasr |
| aq |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | lr.w.aq | | lr.w.aq | | l{b|h|w|d} |
| | amoswap.aq | sc.w | amocas.aq | sc.w | l{b|h|w|d}.aq | fence r, rw |
| | | (fence r, rw) | | (fence r, rw) | | |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
(fence rw, w), (fence r, rw) here means such instructions will only be inserted when zalasr is not implemented.
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list