From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] memory barriers in rte_ring
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:06:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140327120620.07f1496b@samsung-9> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53345655.9030907@6wind.com>
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:48:21 +0100
Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The commit 286bd05bf7 [1] removed the memory barriers in the ring
> functions. This patch is present in DPDK since version 1.4.0r0, so I
> guess it does not cause any issue.
>
> But after checking the excellent Linux kernel documentation about memory
> barriers [2], I'm wondering why memory barriers would not be required in
> that case.
>
> To illustrate the previous behavior (before dpdk 1.4):
>
> ring_enqueue()
> - move producer_head to reserve space in ring (atomically if
> multi producers)
> - write objects between producer_head and producer_tail
> - wmb() to ensure that STORE operations are issued
> - write producer_tail
>
> ring_dequeue()
> - move consumer_head (atomically if multi consumers)
> - rmb() to ensure that LOAD operations are issued: the read of
> consumer_head must occur before the reading of objects ptrs.
> In fact, rmb() is probably not needed here because knowing the
> value of consumer_head is required before reading the objects
> table.
> - read objects between consumer_head and consumer_tail
> - write consumer_tail
>
> The memory barriers have been removed, but in my understanding at least
> the wmb() would be needed according to the generic memory barrier
> documentation. Maybe this is not needed on newest Intel processors?
> Could anyone from Intel enlight me on this?
>
> Thanks & regards,
> Olivier
>
>
> [1]
> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h?id=286bd05bf70d1da1b6017007276c267a1e012c1d
>
> [2] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
Short answer, only a compiler barrier is necessary.
Long answer: for the multple CPU access ring, it is equivalent to smp_wmb and smp_rmb
in Linux kernel. For x86 where DPDK is used, this can normally be replaced by simpler
compiler barrier. In kernel there is a special flage X86_OOSTORE which is only enabled
for a few special cases, for most cases it is not. When cpu doesnt do out of order
stores, there are no cases where other cpu will see wrong state.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-27 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-27 16:48 Olivier MATZ
2014-03-27 19:06 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2014-03-27 19:47 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-03-27 20:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-03-27 23:53 ` Venkatesan, Venky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140327120620.07f1496b@samsung-9 \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).