Commit Graph

3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Thomas Gleixner 50acfb2b76 treewide: Replace GPLv2 boilerplate/reference with SPDX - rule 286
Based on 1 normalized pattern(s):

  this program is free software you can redistribute it and or modify
  it under the terms of the gnu general public license as published by
  the free software foundation version 2 this program is distributed
  in the hope that it will be useful but without any warranty without
  even the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a
  particular purpose see the gnu general public license for more
  details

extracted by the scancode license scanner the SPDX license identifier

  GPL-2.0-only

has been chosen to replace the boilerplate/reference in 97 file(s).

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Reviewed-by: Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@intel.com>
Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190529141901.025053186@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2019-06-05 17:36:37 +02:00
Andrea Parri 5ce6c1f353
riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences
Atomics present the same issue with locking: release and acquire
variants need to be strengthened to meet the constraints defined
by the Linux-kernel memory consistency model [1].

Atomics present a further issue: implementations of atomics such
as atomic_cmpxchg() and atomic_add_unless() rely on LR/SC pairs,
which do not give full-ordering with .aqrl; for example, current
implementations allow the "lr-sc-aqrl-pair-vs-full-barrier" test
below to end up with the state indicated in the "exists" clause.

In order to "synchronize" LKMM and RISC-V's implementation, this
commit strengthens the implementations of the atomics operations
by replacing .rl and .aq with the use of ("lightweigth") fences,
and by replacing .aqrl LR/SC pairs in sequences such as:

  0:      lr.w.aqrl  %0, %addr
          bne        %0, %old, 1f
          ...
          sc.w.aqrl  %1, %new, %addr
          bnez       %1, 0b
  1:

with sequences of the form:

  0:      lr.w       %0, %addr
          bne        %0, %old, 1f
          ...
          sc.w.rl    %1, %new, %addr   /* SC-release   */
          bnez       %1, 0b
          fence      rw, rw            /* "full" fence */
  1:

following Daniel's suggestion.

These modifications were validated with simulation of the RISC-V
memory consistency model.

C lr-sc-aqrl-pair-vs-full-barrier

{}

P0(int *x, int *y, atomic_t *u)
{
	int r0;
	int r1;

	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
	r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(u, 0, 1);
	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
}

P1(int *x, int *y, atomic_t *v)
{
	int r0;
	int r1;

	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
	r0 = atomic_cmpxchg(v, 0, 1);
	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
}

exists (u=1 /\ v=1 /\ 0:r1=0 /\ 1:r1=0)

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151930201102853&w=2
    https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/hKywNHBkAXM
    https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151633436614259&w=2

Suggested-by: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
Cc: Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>
Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
2018-04-02 19:59:44 -07:00
Palmer Dabbelt fab957c11e RISC-V: Atomic and Locking Code
This contains all the code that directly interfaces with the RISC-V
memory model.  While this code corforms to the current RISC-V ISA
specifications (user 2.2 and priv 1.10), the memory model is somewhat
underspecified in those documents.  There is a working group that hopes
to produce a formal memory model by the end of the year, but my
understanding is that the basic definitions we're relying on here won't
change significantly.

Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
2017-09-26 15:26:45 -07:00