Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Oct 30 2013 - 11:39:58 EST
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 10/30/2013 01:25:26 PM:
> > Also, I'm not entirely sure on C, that too seems like a dependency, we
> > simply cannot read the buffer @tail before we've read the tail itself,
> > now can we? Similarly we cannot compare tail to head without having the
> > head read completed.
> No, this one we cannot omit, because our problem on consumer side is not
> with @tail, which is written exclusively by consumer, but with @head.
Ah indeed, my argument was flawed in that @head is the important part.
But we still do a comparison of @tail against @head before we do further
Although I suppose speculative reads are allowed -- they don't have the
destructive behaviour speculative writes have -- and thus we could in
fact get reorder issues.
But since it is still a dependent load in that we do that @tail vs @head
comparison before doing other loads, wouldn't a read_barrier_depends()
be sufficient? Or do we still need a complete rmb?
> BTW, it is why you also don't need ACCESS_ONCE() around @tail, but only
> @head read.
Agreed, the ACCESS_ONCE() around tail is superfluous since we're the one
updating tail, so there's no problem with the value changing
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/