From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f193.google.com (mail-yw0-f193.google.com [209.85.161.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E7837AA for ; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 04:05:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yw0-f193.google.com with SMTP id g192so1374252ywh.0 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 19:05:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dh8e18xAidcIATHrID0Dg/ftzouUyF8LTbZ/927q19Q=; b=QNCv3KKU3amvgpqLpoNE0oLSYDj2cFFF6svRe+iV69j+Ymq9/ISquchvyEFm7OZK2o s0nDDSc5oXtgtUd5i0U4bjGwmqts/HFCDm6iuubqKaJlO9s0PNCJ9/KC8ctvJnzFrm88 dYVn3pKHceVmltc1hM+kDa+kJlskJJVKCjrPxyobH2xRtVWUiaTRFx+Q8oHw58OrYQGB n4vfsnPqnTgbMLV/MR+5WeD4sFz3MzI+ehSZ3DLS9rduY4zGO4SX1z81aQlCjrnp2hsc 8708NS3zT4Cuav23xbpiXh8OQTbwiceLUs8pYo/u6oKwpNHJUzHYW6i9kiLlVSebyE1E MR8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dh8e18xAidcIATHrID0Dg/ftzouUyF8LTbZ/927q19Q=; b=l6DYg3G+Q95w81IUhLJLbf7YKF3hkX0KIdtGB0wCi2hwLeXtyd23V2iV2PVDQgJqgH ghshq0R4nkfrH2dav1YNZP7Yi6eHehwyPFvT/NuS/gCe5RYRqTyWzJAU5bIoAl7sIsuE ju3CtCZmYmOjSd1cRuHSGYaHZX5w59yaxtosTGAbNmNae5XN+q+Ah3MLCJpGUWcnSQNo +wH4TxQTFi4pT8SznpCUTUFQLK4k8bpR+uLduo5viO9wMmdhVeSzHodDgmwjCTLwqIu2 XUVkD0qLyCr4DuE7c921ZY3NdjLljoTGknLwNqTmTm9Uy4xETGYngwMAqH3ud+Ocnq8x SEcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwN2638rVgOfXz5pk+AGn/DoSWd3NZwruHw7Mv3tqDYX9kXHTR8dLs6YbIPtBTilBOdQMyUMf0SX4vG3Yw== X-Received: by 10.13.215.210 with SMTP id z201mr3891079ywd.108.1472868309611; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 19:05:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.240.71 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:05:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160902095143.117482f0@xeon-e3> References: <1472793906-5699-1-git-send-email-slayercat.subscription@gmail.com> <20160902091236.57250d1a@xeon-e3> <20160902095143.117482f0@xeon-e3> From: Linzhe Lee Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 10:05:09 +0800 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: fix atomic refcnt update synchronization X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 02:05:10 -0000 yes,stephen. my config file here: http://pastebin.com/N0RKGArh 2016-09-03 0:51 GMT+08:00 Stephen Hemminger : > On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:31:50 +0800 > Linzhe Lee wrote: > >> Thanks for reply, Stephen. >> >> >> >> I'm in x86-64, my cpu is `Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v3 @ 2.40GHz`. >> >> >> >> When allocation mbuf in program1, and transfer it to program2 for free >> via ring, the program1 might meet assert in allocate mbuf sometimes. >> (`RTE_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 0);`) >> >> >> >> but when I using gdb to check it, the refcnt field of mbuf is already >> zero. so I believe the problem came from the cache line problem or >> incorrect optimization. >> >> >> >> When apply this patch, the problem seems solved. I'm submitting it for >> your comments. > > Are you sure you have REFCNT_ATOMIC set?