On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:52 PM Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > + select ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS if TOOLCHAIN_HAS_ZABHA
> > > IIUC, we should make sure qspinlocks run with ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE,
> > > perhaps a similar select for the latter? (not a kconfig expert)
> >
> >
> > Where did you see this dependency? And if that is really a dependency of
> > qspinlocks, shouldn't this be under CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS? (not a Kconfig
> > expert too).
>
> The comment on smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in include/linux/rcupdate.h
> (the barrier is currently only used by the RCU subsystem) recalls:
>
> /*
> * Place this after a lock-acquisition primitive to guarantee that
> * an UNLOCK+LOCK pair acts as a full barrier. This guarantee applies
> * if the UNLOCK and LOCK are executed by the same CPU or if the
> * UNLOCK and LOCK operate on the same lock variable.
> */
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE
> #define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() smp_mb() /* Full ordering for lock. */
> #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE */
> #define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() do { } while (0)
> #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE */
>
> Architectures whose UNLOCK+LOCK implementation does not (already) meet
> the required "full barrier" ordering property (currently, only powerpc)
> can overwrite the "default"/common #define for this barrier (NOP) and
> meet the ordering by opting in for ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE.
>
> The (current) "generic" ticket lock implementation provides "the full
> barrier" in its LOCK operations (hence in part. in UNLOCK+LOCK), cf.
>
> arch_spin_trylock() -> atomic_try_cmpxchg()
> arch_spin_lock() -> atomic_fetch_add()
> -> atomic_cond_read_acquire(); smp_mb()
>
> but the "UNLOCK+LOCK pairs act as a full barrier" property doesn't hold
> true for riscv (and powerpc) when switching over to queued spinlock.
Yes.
> OTOH, I see no particular reason for other "users" of queued spinlocks
> (notably, x86 and arm64) for selecting ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE.
I looked at the riscv-unprivileged ppo section, seems RISC-V .rl ->
.aq has RCsc annotations.
ref:
Explicit Synchronization
5. has an acquire annotation
6. has a release annotation
7. a and b both have RCsc annotations
And for qspinlock:
unlock:
smp_store_release(&lock->locked, 0);
lock:
if (likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&lock->val, &val, _Q_LOCKED_VAL)))
If the hardware has Store-Release and CAS instructions, they all obey
Explicit Synchronization rules. Then RISC-V "UNLOCK+LOCK" pairs act as
a full barrier, right?
>
> But does this address your concern? Let me know if I misunderstood it.
>
> Andrea
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
