[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mhng-d0fc25e5-9a3f-4988-9260-3d584b8f4606@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:21:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To: parri.andrea@...il.com, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
CC: albert@...ive.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, parri.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv/barrier: Define __smp_{store_release,load_acquire}
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:24:11 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@...il.com wrote:
> Introduce __smp_{store_release,load_acquire}, and rely on the generic
> definitions for smp_{store_release,load_acquire}. This avoids the use
> of full ("rw,rw") fences on SMP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
> index 5510366d169ae..d4628e4b3a5ea 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -38,6 +38,21 @@
> #define __smp_rmb() RISCV_FENCE(r,r)
> #define __smp_wmb() RISCV_FENCE(w,w)
>
> +#define __smp_store_release(p, v) \
> +do { \
> + compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \
> + RISCV_FENCE(rw,w); \
> + WRITE_ONCE(*p, v); \
> +} while (0)
> +
> +#define __smp_load_acquire(p) \
> +({ \
> + typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p); \
> + compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p); \
> + RISCV_FENCE(r,rw); \
> + ___p1; \
> +})
> +
> /*
> * This is a very specific barrier: it's currently only used in two places in
> * the kernel, both in the scheduler. See include/linux/spinlock.h for the two
I'm adding Daniel just in case I misunderstood what's going on here, but these
look good to me. As this is a non-trivial memory model change I'm going to let
it bake in linux-next for a bit just so it gets some visibility.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists