[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWFhSYalMCgTo+SG@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 21:51:53 -0500
From: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Muellner <christoph.muellner@...ll.eu>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@...tanamicro.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] RISC-V: Add dynamic TSO support
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:15:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 08:21:37AM +0100, Christoph Muellner wrote:
> > From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@...ll.eu>
> >
> > The upcoming RISC-V Ssdtso specification introduces a bit in the senvcfg
> > CSR to switch the memory consistency model at run-time from RVWMO to TSO
> > (and back). The active consistency model can therefore be switched on a
> > per-hart base and managed by the kernel on a per-process/thread base.
>
> You guys, computers are hartless, nobody told ya?
>
> > This patch implements basic Ssdtso support and adds a prctl API on top
> > so that user-space processes can switch to a stronger memory consistency
> > model (than the kernel was written for) at run-time.
> >
> > I am not sure if other architectures support switching the memory
> > consistency model at run-time, but designing the prctl API in an
> > arch-independent way allows reusing it in the future.
>
> IIRC some Sparc chips could do this, but I don't think anybody ever
> exposed this to userspace (or used it much).
>
> IA64 had planned to do this, except they messed it up and did it the
> wrong way around (strong first and then relax it later), which lead to
> the discovery that all existing software broke (d'uh).
>
> I think ARM64 approached this problem by adding the
> load-acquire/store-release instructions and for TSO based code,
> translate into those (eg. x86 -> arm64 transpilers).
Keeping global TSO order is easier and faster than mixing
acquire/release and regular load/store. That means when ssdtso is
enabled, the transpiler's load-acquire/store-release becomes regular
load/store. Some micro-arch hardwares could speed up the performance.
Of course, you may say powerful machines could smooth out the difference
between ssdtso & load-acquire/store-release, but that's not real life.
Adding ssdtso is a flexible way to gain more choices on the cost of chip
design.
>
> IIRC Risc-V actually has such instructions as well, so *why* are you
> doing this?!?!
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists