Re: [PATCH] riscv/barrier: Define __smp_{store_release,load_acquire}

[Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>]

On 2/27/2018 10:21 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:24:11 PST (-0800), parri.andrea@gmail.com wrote:
>> Introduce __smp_{store_release,load_acquire}, and rely on the generic
>> definitions for smp_{store_release,load_acquire}. This avoids the use
>> of full ("rw,rw") fences on SMP.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
>> index 5510366d169ae..d4628e4b3a5ea 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
>> @@ -38,6 +38,21 @@
>>  #define __smp_rmb()    RISCV_FENCE(r,r)
>>  #define __smp_wmb()    RISCV_FENCE(w,w)
>>
>> +#define __smp_store_release(p, v)                    \
>> +do {                                    \
>> +    compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);                \
>> +    RISCV_FENCE(rw,w);                        \
>> +    WRITE_ONCE(*p, v);                        \
>> +} while (0)
>> +
>> +#define __smp_load_acquire(p)                        \
>> +({                                    \
>> +    typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p);                \
>> +    compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);                \
>> +    RISCV_FENCE(r,rw);                        \
>> +    ___p1;                                \
>> +})
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * This is a very specific barrier: it's currently only used in two places in
>>   * the kernel, both in the scheduler.  See include/linux/spinlock.h for the two
> 
> I'm adding Daniel just in case I misunderstood what's going on here,
> but these look good to me.  As this is a non-trivial memory model
> change I'm going to let it bake in linux-next for a bit just so it
> gets some visibility.

Looks good to me too.  In particular, it also covers the
Write->release(p)->acquire(p)->Write ordering that we were debating
in the broader LKMM thread, which is good.

Dan

> 
> Thanks