Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 01:24:12 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] locking/qspinlock: Add
 ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS_XCHG32
Message-ID: <YGyZPCxJYGOvqYZQ@boqun-archlinux>
References: <1616868399-82848-1-git-send-email-guoren@kernel.org>
 <1616868399-82848-4-git-send-email-guoren@kernel.org>
 <YGGGqftfr872/4CU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJF2gTQNV+_txMHJw0cmtS-xcnuaCja-F7XBuOL_J0yN39c+uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YGG5c4QGq6q+lKZI@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJF2gTQUe237NY-kh+4_Yk4DTFJmA5_xgNQ5+BMpFZpUDUEYdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YGHM2/s4FpWZiEQ6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJF2gTS4jexKsSiXBY=5rz53LjcLUZ1K4pxjYJDVQCWx_8JTuA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJF2gTS4jexKsSiXBY=5rz53LjcLUZ1K4pxjYJDVQCWx_8JTuA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:22:35PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:01:41PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > u32 a = 0x55aa66bb;
> > > u16 *ptr = &a;
> > >
> > > CPU0                       CPU1
> > > =========             =========
> > > xchg16(ptr, new)     while(1)
> > >                                     WRITE_ONCE(*(ptr + 1), x);
> > >
> > > When we use lr.w/sc.w implement xchg16, it'll cause CPU0 deadlock.
> >
> > Then I think your LL/SC is broken.
> No, it's not broken LR.W/SC.W. Quote <8.3 Eventual Success of
> Store-Conditional Instructions>:
> 
> "As a consequence of the eventuality guarantee, if some harts in an
> execution environment are
> executing constrained LR/SC loops, and no other harts or devices in
> the execution environment
> execute an unconditional store or AMO to that reservation set, then at
> least one hart will
> eventually exit its constrained LR/SC loop. By contrast, if other
> harts or devices continue to
> write to that reservation set, it is not guaranteed that any hart will
> exit its LR/SC loop."
> 
> So I think it's a feature of LR/SC. How does the above code (also use
> ll.w/sc.w to implement xchg16) running on arm64?
> 
> 1: ldxr
>     eor
>     cbnz ... 2f
>     stxr
>     cbnz ... 1b   // I think it would deadlock for arm64.
> 
> "LL/SC fwd progress" which you have mentioned could guarantee stxr
> success? How hardware could do that?
> 

Actually, "old" riscv standard does provide fwd progress ;-) In

	https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/riscv-spec-v2.2.pdf

Section "7.2 Load-Reserved/Store-Conditional Instructions":

"""
One advantage of CAS is that it guarantees that some hart eventually
makes progress, whereas an LR/SC atomic sequence could livelock
indefinitely on some systems. To avoid this concern, we added an
architectural guarantee of forward progress to LR/SC atomic sequences.
The restrictions on LR/SC sequence contents allows an implementation to
**capture a cache line on the LR and complete the LR/SC sequence by
holding off remote cache interventions for a bounded short time**.
"""

The guarantee is removed later due to "Earlier versions of this
specification imposed a stronger starvation-freedom guarantee. However,
the weaker livelock-freedom guarantee is sufficient to implement the C11
and C++11 languages, and is substantially easier to provide in some
microarchitectural styles."

But I take it as an example that hardware can guarantee this.

Regards,
Boqun

> >
> > That also means you really don't want to build super complex locking
> > primitives on top, because that live-lock will percolate through.
> >
> > Step 1 would be to get your architecute fixed such that it can provide
> > fwd progress guarantees for LL/SC. Otherwise there's absolutely no point
> > in building complex systems with it.
> --
> Best Regards
>  Guo Ren
> 
> ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/