From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kiselev99@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com
 [209.85.223.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691B91B2B4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:43:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id g14so16358155iob.9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:43:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=PVlO9pESo6hjVA3iLCRWAiB85++jOmM/tlx9qVnxoV4=;
 b=frC6M6RdWVDktKa4RWJ9Dsnv86CaHUXweeSxzoX2h5CE5ASJhcLoCemxZZhDVd8ECI
 IBe0kOPmQZlHE3sLcqH9OI1NAIKejmox1NKnOMevsy9MhP40MzOh7eGMFIrZG5VUrTwJ
 lm33GkBUtx2qw8oBcfc5+C2jwtMEY0AA4bgYh1BmomUERnHwoPE5mbrwjhCGppMkoEx2
 KLN7q6M8kTc9yMYS923vPx0cPykTFuuFJtNODTcNl08VWWHLD/7LAtFJQAPrfEF0yBcI
 cetpPJ8rvlUvJxO4nUEUPeHIEa0EsocgbwcuoEkdlwk+HNcqnDjrlhJ7Gey3MB3LSyoH
 bO0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=PVlO9pESo6hjVA3iLCRWAiB85++jOmM/tlx9qVnxoV4=;
 b=bOkSrujHHy4Kmb3JH6UT8xAI+FmBDGHinFwHXlnUgToGoe6TxMooKtKD5t1ip5nHAJ
 weSpswRmolLwFJE1/dtYaElaTgTifu7LMi7vXr8V91T1Q8YTuUGTnF6GfYa4WdN5X1bX
 HrfmCQXK7H8Ps1JB2xQvqnos6AiTKHL5FWeXXizZJt7bVZ7dG5kBT1yh3+9GNFebA7pF
 1RH9ceDeaOpfbr7SMRwBuicX2hJVdryHNcYL1caI3ux55qqEKvkJPetU7y80fp19xcYp
 jvk+l65qUareAiypMR064g1YOykVaI7TATeeKTq4xAYv171QsBRHmVUc7XSntduceYGv
 UrmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCAMxZMc/wWQNP1VG53m96fh22RYmwUG4s9Jfe2czYTC9F1lgz9
 kqtgreQ/0PqUkQ1gZsMctta2Qi6Gmk8HIVpb9UXpWA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226UFCTNagiLIzNUBOzKgH+BHn0f0HysF29YS1OCpjquuPqmOw4WKEDUW6jzSosov/a5z6kPsWz4thP87LSWxnk=
X-Received: by 10.107.18.70 with SMTP id a67mr2517626ioj.190.1518550981458;
 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:43:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.52.212 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:43:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMKNYbw7=b69eCM17p8SperLRD86wtKw3iLj1FtG8gL7bUakNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMKNYbw7=b69eCM17p8SperLRD86wtKw3iLj1FtG8gL7bUakNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Kiselev <kiselev99@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:43:01 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMKNYbwgJJ1Zv9F9FUeEs2qTHn2RL5EdbDU--QYnt4he_2Th7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] release/acquire memory barriers and ring
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:43:02 -0000

I am sorry. I should've posted to the user list of couse.
My mistake.

2018-02-13 22:37 GMT+03:00 Alex Kiselev <kiselev99@gmail.com>:
> Hi.
>
> I've been wondering should I use a release/acquire memory barrier pair
> in order to be sure that the other thread will see the fully/corrected
> initialized object
> passed to it via a dpdk ring or ring itself is a kind of barrier?
>
> Let's say I have a pseudo code:
>
> Thread1:
> obj = alloc();
> ...
> obj initialization
> ...
>
> ??? fence(memory_order_release); ???
> rte_ring_sp_enqueue(ring, obj)
>
>
> Thread2:
> ??? fence(memory_order_acquire); ???
> rte_ring_sc_dequeue(ring, obj)
>
> Should I use fences in that code?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Alex