On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 11:06 PM Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 12:28 PM hev <r@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 8:59 PM WANG Xuerui <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/18/22 01:45, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I see that the qspinlock() code actually calls a 'relaxed' version of xchg16(),
> > > >> but you only implement the one with the full barrier. Is it possible to
> > > >> directly provide a relaxed version that has something less than the
> > > >> __WEAK_LLSC_MB?
> > > > I am also curious that __WEAK_LLSC_MB is very magic. How does it
> > > > prevent preceded accesses from happening after sc for a strong
> > > > cmpxchg?
> > > >
> > > > #define __cmpxchg_asm(ld, st, m, old, new) \
> > > > ({ \
> > > > __typeof(old) __ret; \
> > > > \
> > > > __asm__ __volatile__( \
> > > > "1: " ld " %0, %2 # __cmpxchg_asm \n" \
> > > > " bne %0, %z3, 2f \n" \
> > > > " or $t0, %z4, $zero \n" \
> > > > " " st " $t0, %1 \n" \
> > > > " beq $zero, $t0, 1b \n" \
> > > > "2: \n" \
> > > > __WEAK_LLSC_MB \
> > > >
> > > > And its __smp_mb__xxx are just defined as a compiler barrier()?
> > > > #define __smp_mb__before_atomic() barrier()
> > > > #define __smp_mb__after_atomic() barrier()
> > > I know this one. There is only one type of barrier defined in the v1.00
> > > of LoongArch, that is the full barrier, but this is going to change.
> > > Huacai hinted in the bringup patchset that 3A6000 and later models would
> > > have finer-grained barriers. So these indeed could be relaxed in the
> > > future, just that Huacai has to wait for their embargo to expire.
> > >
> >
> > IIRC, The Loongson LL/SC behaves differently than others:
> >
> > Loongson:
> > LL: Full barrier + Load exclusive
> > SC: Store conditional + Full barrier
> How about your "am"#asm_op"_db."?
>
> Full barrier + AMO + Full barrier ?
Yes. AMO without '_db' is relaxed.
hev
