Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Sun, 26 Nov 2023 07:34:30 -0500
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
To:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Muellner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com>,
        Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= <bjorn@rivosinc.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] RISC-V: Add dynamic TSO support
Message-ID: <ZWM7VvHNkW2iIRCg@gmail.com>
References: <20231124072142.2786653-1-christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
 <20231124101519.GP3818@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <59da3e41-abb3-405a-8f98-c74bdf26935b@huaweicloud.com>
 <20231124115430.GS3818@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231124115430.GS3818@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:54:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:04:09PM +0100, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> 
> > > I think ARM64 approached this problem by adding the
> > > load-acquire/store-release instructions and for TSO based code,
> > > translate into those (eg. x86 -> arm64 transpilers).
> > 
> > 
> > Although those instructions have a bit more ordering constraints.
> > 
> > I have heard rumors that the apple chips also have a register that can be
> > set at runtime.
I could understand the rumor, smart design! Thx for sharing.

> 
> Oh, I thought they made do with the load-acquire/store-release thingies.
> But to be fair, I haven't been paying *that* much attention to the apple
> stuff.
> 
> I did read about how they fudged some of the x86 flags thing.
> 
> > And there are some IBM machines that have a setting, but not sure how it is
> > controlled.
> 
> Cute, I'm assuming this is the Power series (s390 already being TSO)? I
> wasn't aware they had this.
> 
> > > IIRC Risc-V actually has such instructions as well, so *why* are you
> > > doing this?!?!
> > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately, at least last time I checked RISC-V still hadn't gotten such
> > instructions.
> > What they have is the *semantics* of the instructions, but no actual opcodes
> > to encode them.
> 
> Well, that sucks..
> 
> > I argued for them in the RISC-V memory group, but it was considered to be
> > outside the scope of that group.
> > 
> > Transpiling with sufficient DMB ISH to get the desired ordering is really
> > bad for performance.
> 
> Ha!, quite dreadful I would imagine.
> 
> > That is not to say that linux should support this. Perhaps linux should
> > pressure RISC-V into supporting implicit barriers instead.
> 
> I'm not sure I count for much in this regard, but yeah, that sounds like
> a plan :-)
>