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:   Thu, 9 Sep 2021 09:25:30 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for
 locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
Message-ID: <YTm26u9i3hpjrNpr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180926182920.27644-2-paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
 <tip-6e89e831a90172bc3d34ecbba52af5b9c4a447d1@git.kernel.org>
 <YTiXyiA92dM9726M@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YTiiC1mxzHyUJ47F@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210908144217.GA603644@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <CAHk-=wiXJygbW+_1BdSX6M8j6z4w8gRSHVcaD5saihaNJApnoQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiXJygbW+_1BdSX6M8j6z4w8gRSHVcaD5saihaNJApnoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:08:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So if this is purely a RISC-V thing,

Just to clarify, I think the current RISC-V thing is stonger than
PowerPC, but maybe not as strong as say ARM64, but RISC-V memory
ordering is still somewhat hazy to me.

Specifically, the sequence:

	/* critical section s */
	WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);
	FENCE RW, W
	WRITE_ONCE(s.lock, 0);		/* store S */
	AMOSWAP %0, 1, r.lock		/* store R */
	FENCE R, RW
	WRITE_ONCE(y, 1);
	/* critical section r */

fully separates section s from section r, as in RW->RW ordering
(possibly not as strong as smp_mb() though), while on PowerPC it would
only impose TSO ordering between sections.

The AMOSWAP is a RmW and as such matches the W from the RW->W fence,
similarly it marches the R from the R->RW fence, yielding an:

	RW->  W
	    RmW
	    R  ->RW

ordering. It's the stores S and R that can be re-ordered, but not the
sections themselves (same on PowerPC and many others).

Clarification from a RISC-V enabled person would be appreciated.

> then I think it's entirely reasonable to
> 
>         spin_unlock(&r);
>         spin_lock(&s);
> 
> cannot be reordered.

I'm obviously completely in favour of that :-)