[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e482049c-70b5-3b4f-a818-0740bec9a4fa@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:20:37 -0800
From: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>, <parri.andrea@...il.com>
CC: <albert@...ive.com>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv/barrier: Define __smp_{store_release,load_acquire}
On 2/27/2018 10:21 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> 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.
Looks good to me too. In particular, it also covers the
Write->release(p)->acquire(p)->Write ordering that we were debating
in the broader LKMM thread, which is good.
Dan
>
> Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists