Re: [dpdk-dev] Bit spinlocks in DPDK

["François-Frédéric Ozog" <ff@ozog.com>]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 20 décembre 2013 16:39
> À : François-Frédéric Ozog
> Cc : dev@dpdk.org
> Objet : Re: [dpdk-dev] Bit spinlocks in DPDK
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 07/12/2013 18:54, François-Frédéric Ozog :
> > 1) If the critical section deals with weakly ordered loads then
> > explicit fencing MUST be used: if not, out of order execution will
> > just kill your idea of critical section.
> [...]
> > So use rte_mb() or rte_wmb() or rte_rmb() where appropriate. I
> > recommend the rte_unlock code and documentation explains the out of
> > order execution issues and the conditions they have to be mitigated
> > with rte*mb(). I wonder if having an explicit mfence in
> > rte_sinlock_unlock wouldn't be just necessary to avoid "hairy" bugs.
> > In addition, we would have rte_sinlock_unlock_no_mb used internally
> > for performance reasons, and usable externally by advanced users.
> 
> Using lock prefix is lighter than using memory barrier and have the same
> effects.

Well, in general yes BUT Intel states "../.. locked operations serialize all
outstanding load and store operations ../.. with one exception. Load
operations that reference weakly ordered memory types (such as the WC memory
type) may *not* be serialized" in 8.1.2.2 Software Controlled Bus Locking;
particularly if streaming loads are used (may happen on certain devices
memory mapped I/O accesses and the compiler generating streaming loads).

So this comment is essentially for the PMD writers: use the fencing where
appropriate, even if the lock prefix is there. As I will be the one
forgetting the rule, I like to have that in the documentation/comments as
reminders to keep things neat.

François-Frédéric

> But you're right about the bug in spinlocks.
> I am going to send a patch for this.
> 
> --
> Thomas