Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:39:16 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv/locking: Strengthen spin_lock() and
 spin_unlock()
Message-ID: <20180226103915.GA8736@arm.com>
References: <1519301990-11766-1-git-send-email-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <20180222134004.GN25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180222141249.GA14033@andrea>
 <82beae6a-2589-6136-b563-3946d7c4fc60@nvidia.com>
 <20180222181317.GI2855@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180222182717.GS25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <563431d0-4fb5-9efd-c393-83cc5197e934@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <563431d0-4fb5-9efd-c393-83cc5197e934@nvidia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:47:57AM -0800, Daniel Lustig wrote:
> On 2/22/2018 10:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:13:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> So we have something that is not all that rare in the Linux kernel
> >> community, namely two conflicting more-or-less concurrent changes.
> >> This clearly needs to be resolved, either by us not strengthening the
> >> Linux-kernel memory model in the way we were planning to or by you
> >> strengthening RISC-V to be no weaker than PowerPC for these sorts of
> >> externally viewed release-acquire situations.
> >>
> >> Other thoughts?
> > 
> > Like said in the other email, I would _much_ prefer to not go weaker
> > than PPC, I find that PPC is already painfully weak at times.
> 
> Sure, and RISC-V could make this work too by using RCsc instructions
> and/or by using lightweight fences instead.  It just wasn't clear at
> first whether smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() were RCpc,
> RCsc, or something else, and hence whether RISC-V would actually need
> to use something stronger than pure RCpc there.  Likewise for
> spin_unlock()/spin_lock() and everywhere else this comes up.
> 
> As Paul's email in the other thread observed, RCpc seems to be
> OK for smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() at least according
> to the current LKMM herd spec.  Unlock/lock are stronger already
> I guess.  But if there's an active proposal to strengthen them all
> to something stricter than pure RCpc, then that's good to know.
> 
> My understanding from earlier discussions is that ARM has no plans
> to use their own RCpc instruction for smp_load_acquire() instead
> of their RCsc instructions.  Is that still true?  If they were to
> use the RCpc load there, that would cause them to have the same
> problem we're discussing here, right?  Just checking.

Agreed. No plans to use the LDAPR instruction in Linux.

Will