| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Introduce __smp_{mb,rmb,wmb}, and rely on the generic definitions
for smp_{mb,rmb,wmb}. A first consequence is that smp_{mb,rmb,wmb}
map to a compiler barrier on !SMP (while their definition remains
unchanged on SMP). As a further consequence, smp_load_acquire and
smp_store_release have "fence rw,rw" instead of "fence iorw,iorw".
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I removed this last week because of an incorrect comment:
smp_mb__after_spinlock() is actually still used, and is necessary on
RISC-V. It's been resurrected, with a comment that describes what it
actually does this time. Thanks to Andrea for finding the bug!
Fixes: 3343eb6806f3 ("RISC-V: Remove smb_mb__{before,after}_spinlock()")
CC: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
These are obselete.
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
These duplicate the asm-generic definitions are therefor aren't useful.
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
|
|
|
This contains all the code that directly interfaces with the RISC-V
memory model. While this code corforms to the current RISC-V ISA
specifications (user 2.2 and priv 1.10), the memory model is somewhat
underspecified in those documents. There is a working group that hopes
to produce a formal memory model by the end of the year, but my
understanding is that the basic definitions we're relying on here won't
change significantly.
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
|
