Message-ID: <YsYivaDEksXPQPaH@boqun-archlinux>
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 17:03:09 -0700
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dan Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        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 V4 5/5] riscv: atomic: Optimize LRSC-pairs atomic ops
 with .aqrl annotation

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 01:29:50PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 1:09 AM Dan Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/22/2022 11:31 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:03:47PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >>> 5ce6c1f3535f ("riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences")
> > >>> is about fixup wrong spinlock/unlock implementation and not relate to
> > >>> this patch.
> > >>
> > >> No.  The commit in question is evidence of the fact that the changes
> > >> you are presenting here (as an optimization) were buggy/incorrect at
> > >> the time in which that commit was worked out.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Actually, sc.w.aqrl is very strong and the same with:
> > >>> fence rw, rw
> > >>> sc.w
> > >>> fence rw,rw
> > >>>
> > >>> So "which do not give full-ordering with .aqrl" is not writen in
> > >>> RISC-V ISA and we could use sc.w/d.aqrl with LKMM.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> describes the issue more specifically, that's when we added these
> > >>>>>> fences.  There have certainly been complains that these fences are too
> > >>>>>> heavyweight for the HW to go fast, but IIUC it's the best option we have
> > >>>>> Yeah, it would reduce the performance on D1 and our next-generation
> > >>>>> processor has optimized fence performance a lot.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Definately a bummer that the fences make the HW go slow, but I don't
> > >>>> really see any other way to go about this.  If you think these mappings
> > >>>> are valid for LKMM and RVWMO then we should figure this out, but trying
> > >>>> to drop fences to make HW go faster in ways that violate the memory
> > >>>> model is going to lead to insanity.
> > >>> Actually, this patch is okay with the ISA spec, and Dan also thought
> > >>> it was valid.
> > >>>
> > >>> ref: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41e01514-74ca-84f2-f5cc-2645c444fd8e@nvidia.com/raw
> > >>
> > >> "Thoughts" on this regard have _changed_.  Please compare that quote
> > >> with, e.g.
> > >>
> > >>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/ddd5ca34-805b-60c4-bf2a-d6a9d95d89e7@nvidia.com/
> > >>
> > >> So here's a suggestion:
> > >>
> > >> Reviewers of your patches have asked:  How come that code we used to
> > >> consider as buggy is now considered "an optimization" (correct)?
> > >>
> > >> Denying the evidence or going around it is not making their job (and
> > >> this upstreaming) easier, so why don't you address it?  Take time to
> > >> review previous works and discussions in this area, understand them,
> > >> and integrate such knowledge in future submissions.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I agree with Andrea.
> > >
> > > And I actually took a look into this, and I think I find some
> > > explanation. There are two versions of RISV memory model here:
> > >
> > > Model 2017: released at Dec 1, 2017 as a draft
> > >
> > >       https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/isa-dev/c/hKywNHBkAXM/m/QzUtxEWLBQAJ
> > >
> > > Model 2018: released at May 2, 2018
> > >
> > >       https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/isa-dev/c/xW03vmfmPuA/m/bMPk3UCWAgAJ
> > >
> > > Noted that previous conversation about commit 5ce6c1f3535f happened at
> > > March 2018. So the timeline is roughly:
> > >
> > >       Model 2017 -> commit 5ce6c1f3535f -> Model 2018
> > >
> > > And in the email thread of Model 2018, the commit related to model
> > > changes also got mentioned:
> > >
> > >       https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commit/b875fe417948635ed68b9644ffdf718cb343a81a
> > >
> > > in that commit, we can see the changes related to sc.aqrl are:
> > >
> > >        to have occurred between the LR and a successful SC.  The LR/SC
> > >        sequence can be given acquire semantics by setting the {\em aq} bit on
> > >       -the SC instruction.  The LR/SC sequence can be given release semantics
> > >       -by setting the {\em rl} bit on the LR instruction.  Setting both {\em
> > >       -  aq} and {\em rl} bits on the LR instruction, and setting the {\em
> > >       -  aq} bit on the SC instruction makes the LR/SC sequence sequentially
> > >       -consistent with respect to other sequentially consistent atomic
> > >       -operations.
> > >       +the LR instruction.  The LR/SC sequence can be given release semantics
> > >       +by setting the {\em rl} bit on the SC instruction.  Setting the {\em
> > >       +  aq} bit on the LR instruction, and setting both the {\em aq} and the {\em
> > >       +  rl} bit on the SC instruction makes the LR/SC sequence sequentially
> > >       +consistent, meaning that it cannot be reordered with earlier or
> > >       +later memory operations from the same hart.
> > >
> > > note that Model 2018 explicitly says that "ld.aq+sc.aqrl" is ordered
> > > against "earlier or later memory operations from the same hart", and
> > > this statement was not in Model 2017.
> > >
> > > So my understanding of the story is that at some point between March and
> > > May 2018, RISV memory model folks decided to add this rule, which does
> > > look more consistent with other parts of the model and is useful.
> > >
> > > And this is why (and when) "ld.aq+sc.aqrl" can be used as a fully-ordered
> > > barrier ;-)
> > >
> > > Now if my understanding is correct, to move forward, it's better that 1)
> > > this patch gets resend with the above information (better rewording a
> > > bit), and 2) gets an Acked-by from Dan to confirm this is a correct
> > > history ;-)
> >
> > I'm a bit lost as to why digging into RISC-V mailing list history is
> > relevant here...what's relevant is what was ratified in the RVWMO
> > chapter of the RISC-V spec, and whether the code you're proposing
> > is the most optimized code that is correct wrt RVWMO.
> >
> > Is your claim that the code you're proposing to fix was based on a
> > pre-RVWMO RISC-V memory model definition, and you're updating it to
> > be more RVWMO-compliant?
> Could "lr + beq + sc.aqrl" provides a conditional RCsc here with
> current spec? I only found "lr.aq + sc.aqrl" despcriton which is
> un-conditional RCsc.
> 

/me put the temporary RISCV memory model hat on and pretend to be a
RISCV memory expert.

I think the answer is yes, it's actually quite straightforwards given
that RISCV treats PPO (Preserved Program Order) as part of GMO (Global
Memory Order), considering the following (A and B are memory accesses):

	A
	..
	sc.aqrl // M
	..
	B

, A has a ->ppo ordering to M since "sc.aqrl" is a RELEASE, and M has
a ->ppo ordeing to B since "sc.aqrl" is an AQUIRE, so

	A ->ppo M ->ppo B

And since RISCV describes that PPO is part of GMO:

"""
The subset of program order that must be respected by the global memory
order is known as preserved program order.
"""

also in the herd model:

	(* Main model axiom *)
	acyclic co | rfe | fr | ppo as Model

, therefore the ordering between A and B is GMO and GMO should be
respected by all harts.

Regards,
Boqun

> >
> > Dan
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Boqun
> > >
> > >>   Andrea
> > >>
> > >>
> > > [...]
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Best Regards
>  Guo Ren
> 
> ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists