RE: [PATCH v1 3/4] ring: fix potential sync issue between head and tail values

[Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage@arm.com>]

> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, I now see your concern.
> 
> So, in summary what you are saying is that tail update from
> Thread #1 that happened at T0 is not observed by the thread #2
> at T2 when it computed new_head and entries calculation.
> That cannot happen in Arm v8/v9 because tail update is a
> store-release and a load-acquire that program order follows it
> can only be issued after all the cores have observed the
> store-release (there is a synchronization with relationship to
> store-release and load-acquire pairs).
> 
> In the example you have provided Thread #1's
> store(&prod.tail, 2, release) is observed by all the cores in the
> system by the time same thread performs load(&prod.tail, acquire)
> at T2. As per Arm v8/v9 memory model Thread #2 should observe
> prod.tail=2 (not prod.tail=1).
> 
> Arm Architecture Reference Manual section B2.10.11 states…
> 
> "Where a Load-Acquire appears in program order after a Store-Release,
> the memory access generated by the Store-Release instruction is
> observed by each PE to the extent that PE is required to observe the
> access coherently, before the memory access generated by the
> Load-Acquire instruction is observed by that PE, to the extent that the
> PE is required to observe the access coherently."
> 

In soring is this the pair that update the tail and move head?  

__rte_soring_update_tail:
	__rte_ring_update_tail(&rht->ht, head, next, st, enq); 

__rte_soring_move_cons_head:
	 __rte_ring_headtail_move_head(&r->cons.ht,  &r->stage[stage].ht, 0, ...);


If so, &rht->ht and &r->stage[stage].ht are the same address? If they are
not, then you will run into the issue you have seen (a.k.a "Other-multi-copy
 atomic" which is legit in Arm v8 and above).

Thanks.

--wathsala


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 6:54 AM
> > To: Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage <wathsala.vithanage@arm.com>;
> > dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>;
> > jerinj@marvell.com; hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; drc@linux.ibm.com; nd
> > <nd@arm.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 3/4] ring: fix potential sync issue between head and
> tail
> > values
> >
> > Hi Wathsala,
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Konstanin,
> > >
> > > In rte_ring the store-release on tail update guarantees that CAS
> > > won't get reordered with the store-released of the tail update.
> > >
> > > So, the sequence of events would look like this (combined view
> > > of head and tail update)
> > >
> > > Releaxed-load(new_head,  N)                              ----------------> (A)
> > > Relaxed-CAS(d->head, new_head, old_head)   ----------------> (B)
> > > Store-release-store(d->tail, new_head)             ----------------> (C)
> > >
> > > If we look at address dependencies, then...
> > >
> > > (B) depends on (A) due to new_head address dependency.
> > > (C) depends on (A) due to new_head address dependency.
> > >
> > > So, dependency graph looks like this
> > >        (A)
> > >     /       \
> > >    v        v
> > >  (B)     (C)
> > >
> > > There is no implicit dependence between (B) and (C), I think
> > > this is the issue you are brining up.
> > > Even though there is no dependence between the two,
> > > the store-release of (C) ensures that (B) won't drop below it.
> > > Therefore, the above graph can be turned into an ordered
> > > sequence as shown below..
> > >
> > > (A) -> (B) -> (C)
> >
> > I do agree that with current implementation of
> > __rte_ring_headtail_move_head()
> > in lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h the order of these 3 operations (A->B->C)
> > should be sequential.
> > The problem I am talking about is a different one:
> > thread can see 'latest' 'cons.head' value, with 'previous' value for 'prod.tail' or
> > visa-versa.
> > In other words: 'cons.head' value depends on 'prod.tail', so before making
> > latest 'cons.head'
> > value visible to other threads, we need to ensure that latest 'prod.tail' is also
> > visible.
> > Let me try to explain it on the example:
> >
> > Suppose at some moment we have:
> > prod={.head=2,.tail=1};
> > cons={.head=0,.tail=0};
> > I.e. thead #1 is in process to enqueue one more element into the ring.
> >
> >        Thread #1                                                                             Thread #2
> > T0:
> >   store(&prod.tail, 2, release);
> >   /*AFAIU: this is somewhat equivalent to: wmb(); prod.tail=2;
> >   * I.E. - it guarantees that all stores initiated before that operation will be
> > visible
> >   * by other threads at the same moment or before new value of prod.tail wlll
> > become
> >   * visible, but it doesn't guarantee that new prod.tail  value will be visible  to
> > other
> >   * threads immediately.
> >   */
> > ...
> > move_cons_head(...,n=2)
> move_cons_head(...,n=1)
> > ...                                                                                              ...
> > T1:
> >   *old_head = load(&cons.head, relaxed);
> >   fence(acquire);
> >   /*old_head == 0, no surprises */
> >   stail = load(&prod.tail, acquire);
> >   /*stail == 2, no surprises */
> >  *entries = (capacity + stail - *old_head);
> > *new_head = *old_head + n;
> >  /* *entries == (2 - 0) == 2; *new_head==2; all good */
> > ...
> > T2:
> >                                                                                                 *old_head =
> > load(&cons.head, relaxed);
> >                                                                                                 fence(acquire);
> >                                                                                                 /*old_head == 0, no
> surprises
> > */
> >                                                                                                 stail = load(&prod.tail,
> > acquire);
> > /* !!!!! stail == 1  !!!!! for Thread 2
> >  * Even though we do use acquire here - there was no *release* after
> > store(&prod.tail).
> >  * So, still no guarantee that Thread 2 will see latest prod.tail value.
> >  */
> >                                                                                                *entries = (capacity + stail -
> > *old_head);
> >                                                                                                /* *entries == (1 - 0) == 1,
> still
> > ok */
> >                                                                                                *new_head = *old_head + n;
> >                                                                                                /* *new_head == 1 */
> > T3:
> >   success = CAS(&cons.head,
> >     old_head /*==0/, *new_head /*==2*/,
> >     relaxed, relaxed);
> >   /*success==1, cons.head==2*/
> >  ...
> > T4:
> >                                                                                            success = CAS(&cons.head,
> >                                                                                            old_head /*==0/, *new_head
> > /*==1*/,
> >                                                                                           relaxed, relaxed);
> >                                                                                           /*success==0, *old_head==2*/
> > /* CAS() failed and provided Thread 2 with latest valued for cons.head(==2)
> >  *  Thread 2 repeats attempt, starts second iteration
> >  */
> >                                                                                           fence(acquire);
> >                                                                                           stail = load(&prod.tail, acquire);
> > /* !!!!! stail == 1  !!!!! for Thread 2
> >  * Still no *release* had happened after store(&prod.tail) at T0.
> >  * So, still no guarantee that Thread 2 will see latest prod.tail value.
> >  */
> >                                                                                           *entries = (capacity + stail -
> > *old_head);
> >                                                                                           *new_head = *old_head + n;
> >
> > /* !!!!! *entries == (1 - 2) == -1(UINT32_MAX); *new_head==(2+1)==3; !!!!!
> >  *  we are about to corrupt our ring !!!!!
> >  */
> >
> > >
> > > I haven't looked at the so-ring yet. Could it be possible that the
> > > issue is due to something else introduced in that code?
> >
> > Well, as I said, so far I wasn't able to re-produce this problem with
> > conventional
> > ring (ring_stress_autotest), only soring_stress_autotest is failing and
> > for now - only on one specific ARM platform.
> > Regarding soring specific fix (without touching common code) -
> > sure it is also possible, pls see patch #2.
> > There I just added 'fence(release);' straight after 'store(&tail);'
> > That's seems enough to fix that problem within the soring only.
> > Though, from my understanding rte_ring might also be affected,
> > that's why I went ahead and prepared that patch.
> > If you feel, that I a missing something here - pls shout.
> > Konstantin
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --wathsala
> > >
> > > > This patch aims several purposes:
> > > > - provide an alternative (and I think a better) way to fix the
> > > >   issue discussed in previous patch:
> > > >   "ring/soring: fix synchronization issue between head and tail values"
> > > > - make sure that such problem wouldn’t happen within other usages of
> > > >   __rte_ring_headtail_move_head() – both current rte_ring
> > > >   implementation and possible future use-cases.
> > > > - step towards unification of move_head() implementations and
> > > >   removing rte_ring_generic_pvt.h
> > > > It uses Acquire-Release memory ordering for CAS operation in
> > move_head().
> > > > That guarantees that corresponding ‘tail’ updates will be visible before
> > current
> > > > ‘head’ is updated.
> > > > As I said before: I think that in theory the problem described in previous
> > patch
> > > > might happen with our conventional rte_ring too (when
> > > > RTE_USE_C11_MEM_MODEL enabled).
> > > > But, so far I didn’t manage to reproduce it in reality.
> > > > For that reason and also because it touches a critical rte_ring code-path, I
> > put
> > > > these changes into a separate patch. Expect all interested stakeholders to
> > come-
> > > > up with their comments and observations.
> > > > Regarding performance impact – on my boxes both ring_perf_autotest
> and
> > > > ring_stress_autotest – show a mixed set of results: some of them
> become
> > few
> > > > cycles faster, another few cycles slower.
> > > > But so far, I didn’t notice any real degradations with that patch.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: b5458e2cc483 ("ring: introduce staged ordered ring")
> > > > Fixes: 1cc363b8ce06 ("ring: introduce HTS ring mode")
> > > > Fixes: e6ba4731c0f3 ("ring: introduce RTS ring mode")
> > > > Fixes: 49594a63147a ("ring/c11: relax ordering for load and store of the
> > head")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h      | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> > > >  lib/ring/rte_ring_hts_elem_pvt.h |  6 ++++--
> > lib/ring/rte_ring_rts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > |  6 ++++--
> > > >  lib/ring/soring.c                |  5 -----
> > > >  4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h b/lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h
> index
> > > > 0845cd6dcf..6d1c46df9a 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h
> > > > @@ -77,20 +77,19 @@ __rte_ring_headtail_move_head(struct
> > > > rte_ring_headtail *d,
> > > >  	int success;
> > > >  	unsigned int max = n;
> > > >
> > > > +	/* Ensure the head is read before tail */
> > > >  	*old_head = rte_atomic_load_explicit(&d->head,
> > > > -			rte_memory_order_relaxed);
> > > > +			rte_memory_order_acquire);
> > > >  	do {
> > > >  		/* Reset n to the initial burst count */
> > > >  		n = max;
> > > >
> > > > -		/* Ensure the head is read before tail */
> > > > -		rte_atomic_thread_fence(rte_memory_order_acquire);
> > > > -
> > > > -		/* load-acquire synchronize with store-release of ht->tail
> > > > -		 * in update_tail.
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * Read s->tail value. Note that it will be loaded after
> > > > +		 * d->head load, but before CAS operation for the d->head.
> > > >  		 */
> > > >  		stail = rte_atomic_load_explicit(&s->tail,
> > > > -					rte_memory_order_acquire);
> > > > +					rte_memory_order_relaxed);
> > > >
> > > >  		/* The subtraction is done between two unsigned 32bits value
> > > >  		 * (the result is always modulo 32 bits even if we have @@ -
> > > > 112,11 +111,19 @@ __rte_ring_headtail_move_head(struct
> > rte_ring_headtail
> > > > *d,
> > > >  			d->head = *new_head;
> > > >  			success = 1;
> > > >  		} else
> > > > -			/* on failure, *old_head is updated */
> > > > +			/*
> > > > +			 * on failure, *old_head is updated.
> > > > +			 * this CAS(ACQ_REL, ACQUIRE) serves as a hoist
> > > > +			 * barrier to prevent:
> > > > +			 *  - OOO reads of cons tail value
> > > > +			 *  - OOO copy of elems from the ring
> > > > +			 *  Also RELEASE guarantees that latest tail value
> > > > +			 *  will become visible before the new head value.
> > > > +			 */
> > > >  			success =
> > > > rte_atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(
> > > >  					&d->head, old_head, *new_head,
> > > > -					rte_memory_order_relaxed,
> > > > -					rte_memory_order_relaxed);
> > > > +					rte_memory_order_acq_rel,
> > > > +					rte_memory_order_acquire);
> > > >  	} while (unlikely(success == 0));
> > > >  	return n;
> > > >  }
> > > > diff --git a/lib/ring/rte_ring_hts_elem_pvt.h
> > b/lib/ring/rte_ring_hts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > index c59e5f6420..cc593433b9 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/ring/rte_ring_hts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/ring/rte_ring_hts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > @@ -116,13 +116,15 @@ __rte_ring_hts_move_head(struct
> > > > rte_ring_hts_headtail *d,
> > > >  		np.pos.head = op.pos.head + n;
> > > >
> > > >  	/*
> > > > -	 * this CAS(ACQUIRE, ACQUIRE) serves as a hoist barrier to prevent:
> > > > +	 * this CAS(ACQ_REL, ACQUIRE) serves as a hoist barrier to prevent:
> > > >  	 *  - OOO reads of cons tail value
> > > >  	 *  - OOO copy of elems from the ring
> > > > +	 *   Also RELEASE guarantees that latest tail value
> > > > +	 *   will become visible before the new head value.
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	} while (rte_atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(&d->ht.raw,
> > > >  			(uint64_t *)(uintptr_t)&op.raw, np.raw,
> > > > -			rte_memory_order_acquire,
> > > > +			rte_memory_order_acq_rel,
> > > >  			rte_memory_order_acquire) == 0);
> > > >
> > > >  	*old_head = op.pos.head;
> > > > diff --git a/lib/ring/rte_ring_rts_elem_pvt.h
> > b/lib/ring/rte_ring_rts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > index 509fa674fb..860b13cc61 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/ring/rte_ring_rts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/ring/rte_ring_rts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > @@ -131,13 +131,15 @@ __rte_ring_rts_move_head(struct
> > > > rte_ring_rts_headtail *d,
> > > >  		nh.val.cnt = oh.val.cnt + 1;
> > > >
> > > >  	/*
> > > > -	 * this CAS(ACQUIRE, ACQUIRE) serves as a hoist barrier to prevent:
> > > > +	 * this CAS(ACQ_REL, ACQUIRE) serves as a hoist barrier to prevent:
> > > >  	 *  - OOO reads of cons tail value
> > > >  	 *  - OOO copy of elems to the ring
> > > > +	 *  Also RELEASE guarantees that latest tail value
> > > > +	 *  will become visible before the new head value.
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	} while (rte_atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(&d-
> > >head.raw,
> > > >  			(uint64_t *)(uintptr_t)&oh.raw, nh.raw,
> > > > -			rte_memory_order_acquire,
> > > > +			rte_memory_order_acq_rel,
> > > >  			rte_memory_order_acquire) == 0);
> > > >
> > > >  	*old_head = oh.val.pos;
> > > > diff --git a/lib/ring/soring.c b/lib/ring/soring.c index
> > 7bcbf35516..21a1a27e24
> > > > 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/ring/soring.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/ring/soring.c
> > > > @@ -123,8 +123,6 @@ __rte_soring_stage_finalize(struct
> > > > soring_stage_headtail *sht, uint32_t stage,
> > > >  	rte_atomic_store_explicit(&sht->tail.raw, ot.raw,
> > > >  			rte_memory_order_release);
> > > >
> > > > -	/* make sure that new tail value is visible */
> > > > -	rte_atomic_thread_fence(rte_memory_order_release);
> > > >  	return i;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -219,9 +217,6 @@ __rte_soring_update_tail(struct
> > __rte_ring_headtail
> > > > *rht,
> > > >  		/* unsupported mode, shouldn't be here */
> > > >  		RTE_ASSERT(0);
> > > >  	}
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* make sure that new tail value is visible */
> > > > -	rte_atomic_thread_fence(rte_memory_order_release);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static __rte_always_inline uint32_t
> > > > --
> > > > 2.43.0