[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZHZESDWJZvhuJ3Af@andrea>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 20:45:28 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc: ajones@...tanamicro.com, heiko@...ech.de,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, christoph.muellner@...ll.eu,
David.Laight@...lab.com, heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] riscv: Add Zawrs support for spinlocks
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:00:43PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 10:05:52 PDT (-0700), ajones@...tanamicro.com wrote:
> > I guess this peeling off of the first iteration is because it's expected
> > that the load generated by READ_ONCE() is more efficient than lr.w/d? If
> > we're worried about unnecessary use of lr.w/d, then shouldn't we look
> > for a solution that doesn't issue those instructions when we don't have
> > the Zawrs extension?
>
> It's actually just a consequence of how the Linux hooks are described:
> they're macros that take a C expression to test in the loop, and we can't
> handle C expressions in LR/SC loops as that'd require compiler support and
> nobody's figured out how to do that correctly yet (there were some patches,
> but they had issues). So we need to do this awkward bit of checking without
> the reservation and then waiting with the reservation.
I believe Andrew was really just hinting to something like (from
arch/arm64/):
#define smp_cond_load_relaxed(ptr, cond_expr) \
({ \
typeof(ptr) __PTR = (ptr); \
__unqual_scalar_typeof(*ptr) VAL; \
for (;;) { \
VAL = READ_ONCE(*__PTR); \
if (cond_expr) \
break; \
__cmpwait_relaxed(__PTR, VAL); \
} \
(typeof(*ptr))VAL; \
})
where the __cmpwait_relaxed() would issue NOPs without Zawrs, a
sequence "lr.* ; beq ; wrs.sto" otherwise. (with the "dangling
reservation" when we branch, similarly to CMPXCHG)?
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists