[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YG3XDnNc+GaW1Tz4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:00:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Müllner <christophm30@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add
ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:29:12PM +0200, Christoph Müllner wrote:
> RISC-V defines LR/SC loops consisting of up to 16 instructions as
> constrained LR/SC loops. Such constrained LR/SC loops provide the
> required forward guarantees, that are expected (similar to what other
> architectures, like AArch64, have).
The text quoted by others didn't seem to say such a thing, but whatever.
> What RISC-V does not have is sub-word atomics and if required, we
> would have to implement them as LL/SC sequences. And yes, using atomic
> instructions is preferred over using LL/SC,
(psudo asm, can't be bothered to figure out the actual syntax)
# setup r_and_mask, r_or_mask
.L1
LL r, [word]
AND r, r, r_and_mask
OR r, r, r_or_mask
SC r, [word]
JNE .L1
is what you need for LL/SC based xchg16, that's less than 16
instructions. If RISC-V guarantees fwd progress on that, good, write it
like that and lets end this thread.
The fact that this is apparently hard, is not good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists