From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
To: "Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: "honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com" <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>,
"konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru" <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>,
"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: Bug in non-power-of-2 rings?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:29:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f036ba2cef9d43a8aab75733469d2d41@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZOMi0bKjONLxE1qf@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi everyone,
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:07:33AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > Bruce, Honnappa, Konstantin,
> >
> > Back in 2017, Bruce added support for non-power-of-2 rings with this patch [1].
> >
> > [1]: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h?id=b74461155543430f5253e96ad6d413ebcad36693
> >
> > I think that the calculation of "entries" in __rte_ring_move_cons_head() [2][3] is incorrect when the ring capacity is not power-of-2,
> because it is missing the capacity comparison you added to rte_ring_count() [4]. Please review if I'm mistaken.
> >
> > [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v23.07/source/lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h#L159
> > [3]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v23.07/source/lib/ring/rte_ring_generic_pvt.h#L150
> > [4]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v23.07/source/lib/ring/rte_ring.h#L502
Just to confirm you suggest something like that:
- *entries = (r->prod.tail - *old_head);
+ count = (r->prod.tail - *old_head);
+ entries = (count > r->capacity) ? r->capacity : count;
right?
> >
> thanks for flagging this inconsistency, but I think we are ok.
>
> For consumer, I think this is correct, because we are only ever reducing
> the number of entries in the ring, and the calculation of the number of
> entries is made in the usual way using modulo arithmetic. We should never
> have more than capacity entries in the ring so the check in ring count I
> believe is superflous. [The exception would be if someone bypassed the
> inline functions and accessed the ring directly themselves - at which point
> "all bets are off", to use the English phrase]
>
> The producer code (__rte_ring_move_prod_head) does do a capacity check,
> which is where one is required to ensure we never exceed capacity.
I also can't come up with the case, when current code will cause an issue..
In properly operating ring, I think we should never have more then r->capacity
entries populated, so this extra check can be skipped.
Unless you do have some particular case in mind?
Konstantin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-21 9:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-20 9:07 Morten Brørup
2023-08-21 8:39 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-08-21 9:29 ` Konstantin Ananyev [this message]
2023-08-21 9:36 ` Morten Brørup
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=f036ba2cef9d43a8aab75733469d2d41@huawei.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.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).