Properly use acqure/release atomics.
Details
Diff Detail
- Lint
Lint Skipped - Unit
Tests Skipped
Event Timeline
Have you looked at D1945, in particular, the most recent postings by sbahra_repnop.org? It's not clear to me that these changes will address the problem described in sbahra_repnop.org's postings. That said, your proposed changes do correct the most obvious remaining issues with the use of acquires and releases in this code.
sys/sys/buf_ring.h | ||
---|---|---|
78 | Was there a reason for moving this load? | |
138 | You may need to use a load acquire on br_prod_tail here to establish an unbroken synchronizes-with chain between the thread that enqueues an item X and the thread that later dequeues it if there are other concurrent enqueues. | |
157 | Was there a reason for moving this load? | |
230 | Was there a reason for swapping the order of the preceding loads? | |
250 | Was there a reason for swapping the order of the preceding loads? |
Yes, i've looked at D1945 but somehow i've missed sbahra_repnop.org's comments. Since i was trying to fix different issue (https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2013-December/037265.html) and remove my own rmb() hack the problem described by sbahra_repnop.org is still here. I'll post updated diff tomorrow.
sys/sys/buf_ring.h | ||
---|---|---|
138 | AFAIK 'synchronizes-with chains' are about RMW operations in between load_acq/store_rel sequence. Can you explain why load_acq is necessary here? I think producer should not care about visibility of br->br_ring[prod_head] stores of other producers. |
- fix issues reported by sbahra_repnop.org here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1945
- fix synchronization chain (producer -> producer -> consumer) noted by alc.
- massive comments.