linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] riscv: atomic: Optimize AMO instructions usage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3e6713ef-5109-25b7-1359-7229fce368dd@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:13:46 -0400
From:   Dan Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] riscv: atomic: Optimize AMO instructions usage

On 4/18/2022 7:41 PM, Andrea Parri wrote:
>>> Seems to me that you are basically reverting 5ce6c1f3535f
>>> ("riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences"). That commit
>>> fixed an memory ordering issue, could you explain why the issue no
>>> longer needs a fix?
>>
>> I'm not reverting the prior patch, just optimizing it.
>>
>> In RISC-V “A” Standard Extension for Atomic Instructions spec, it said:
> 
> With reference to the RISC-V herd specification at:
> 
>   https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual.git
> 
> the issue, better, lr-sc-aqrl-pair-vs-full-barrier seems to _no longer_
> need a fix since commit:
> 
>   03a5e722fc0f ("Updates to the memory consistency model spec")
> 
> (here a template, to double check:
> 
>   https://github.com/litmus-tests/litmus-tests-riscv/blob/master/tests/non-mixed-size/HAND/LR-SC-NOT-FENCE.litmus )
> 
> I defer to Daniel/others for a "bi-section" of the prose specification.
> ;-)

What is the question exactly?

Dan

> 
>   Andrea