On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 1:09 AM Dan Lustig <dlustig@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx/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@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Dan
>
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> >
> >> Andrea
> >>
> >>
> > [...]
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
