> >
> > > > > > > 1. rte_ring_generic_pvt.h:
> > > > > > > =====================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > pseudo-c-code //
> > > > > > > related armv8 instructions
> > > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > > > > head.load() //
> > > > > > > ldr [head]
> > > > > > > rte_smp_rmb() // dmb
> > > > > > > ishld
> > > > > > > opposite_tail.load() // ldr
> > > > > > > [opposite_tail]
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > rte_atomic32_cmpset(head, ...) // ldrex[head];...
> > > > > > > stlex[head]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. rte_ring_c11_pvt.h
> > > > > > > =====================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > pseudo-c-code //
> > > > > > > related armv8 instructions
> > > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > > > > head.atomic_load(relaxed) // ldr[head]
> > > > > > > atomic_thread_fence(acquire) // dmb ish
> > > > > > > opposite_tail.atomic_load(acquire) // lda[opposite_tail]
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > head.atomic_cas(..., relaxed) // ldrex[haed];
> > > > > > > ... strex[head]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. rte_ring_hts_elem_pvt.h
> > > > > > > ==========================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > pseudo-c-code //
> > > > > > > related armv8 instructions
> > > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > > > > head.atomic_load(acquire) // lda [head]
> > > > > > > opposite_tail.load() // ldr
> > > > > > > [opposite_tail]
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > head.atomic_cas(..., acquire) // ldaex[head];
> > > > > > > ... strex[head]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The questions that arose from these observations:
> > > > > > > a) are all 3 approaches equivalent in terms of functionality?
> > > > > > Different, lda (Load with acquire semantics) and ldr (load) are
> > > > > > different.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that, my question was:
> > > > > lda {head]; ldr[tail]
> > > > > vs
> > > > > ldr [head]; dmb ishld; ldr [tail];
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any difference in terms of functionality (memory ops
> > > > ordering/observability)?
> > > >
> > > > To be more precise:
> > > >
> > > > lda {head]; ldr[tail]
> > > > vs
> > > > ldr [head]; dmb ishld; ldr [tail];
> > > > vs
> > > > ldr [head]; dmb ishld; lda [tail];
> > > >
> > > > what would be the difference between these 3 cases?
> > >
> > > Case A: lda {head]; ldr[tail]
> > > load of the head will be observed by the memory subsystem before the
> > > load of the tail.
> > >
> > > Case B: ldr [head]; dmb ishld; ldr [tail]; load of the head will be
> > > observed by the memory subsystem Before the load of the tail.
> > >
> > >
> > > Essentially both cases A and B are the same.
> > > They preserve following program orders.
> > > LOAD-LOAD
> > > LOAD-STORE
> >
> > Ok, that is crystal clear, thanks for explanation.
> >
> >
> > > Case C: ldr [head]; dmb ishld; lda [tail]; load of the head will be
> > > observed by the memory subsystem before the load of the tail.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > > In addition, any load or store program order after lda[tail] will not
> > > be observed by the memory subsystem before the load of the tail.
> >
> > Ok... the question is why we need that extra hoisting barrier here?
> > From what unwanted re-orderings we are protecting here?
> > Does it mean that without it, ldrex/strex (CAS) can be reordered with
> > load[cons.tail]?
> >
> > Actually, we probably need to look at whole picture:
> >
> > in rte_ring_generic_pvt.h
> > =====================
> >
> > ldr [prod.head]
> > dmb ishld
> > ldr [cons.tail]
> > ...
> > /* cas */
> > ldrex [prod.head]
> > stlex [prod.head] /* sink barrier */
> >
> > in rte_ring_c11_pvt.h
> > =====================
> >
> > ldr [prod.head]
> > dmb ishld
> > lda [cons.tail] /* exrea hoist */
> > ...
> > /* cas */
> > ldrex [prod.head]
> > strex [prod.head]
>
> Minor thing, ldrex and strex is how Arm 32 way of doing CAS.
> Aaarch64 has a cas instruction.
> Same code in aarch64 armv9-a https://godbolt.org/z/TMvWx6v4n
Cool, thanks.
>
> >
> > So, in _genereic_ we don't have that extra hoist barrier after
> > load[con.tail], but
> > we have extra sink barrier at cas(prod.tail).
> >
>
> You are right, technically, that lda[cons.tail] is not required because due
> to the
> dependency chain up until CAS a memory reordering is not possible.
> For that reason, it has no issue synchronizing with the strl[prod.tail] (in
> tail-update).
> C11 standard calls it consume-memory-order (__ATOMIC_CONSUME in GCC).
>
> So, ideally one could have written something like...
> __atomic_load_n(prod.head, __ATOMIC_CONSUME);
> instead of
> __atomic_load_n(prod.head, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
>
> The compiler is then supposed to figure out if there are any dependencies in
> the code path to ensure that load of the prod.head is observed before any
> load/store that's program order after the load of the prod.head.
> If not, the compiler is supposed to add required barrier to ensure that order
> is
> preserved.
>
> However, it's easier said than done. No, compiler implements it and C11
> standard
> discourages use of memory-order-consume for that reason.
>
> This brings us to the next caveat. As per C11 standard, there cannot be a
> free standing
> Store with release semantics (stlr) that isn't paired with a load with
> acquire or consume
> semantics. Since we can't use __ATOMIC_CONSUME (which would have resulted in
> ldr[prod.head]), we are forced to use __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE (which results in
> lda[prod.head]).
>
>
> > If that's correct observation, can we change _c11_ implementation to match
> > _generic_ one by:
> >
> > atomic_load(prod.head, releaxed);
> > atomic_thread_fence(acquire);
> > atomic_load(cons.tail, releaxed);
> > ....
> > atomic_cas(prod.head, release, relaxed); ?
> >
> > From my understanding that should help to make these 2 implantations
> > Identical, and then hopefully we can get rid of rte_ring_generic_pvt.h.
> >
>
> They both are functionally correct.
> _generic is correct but does not comply with the C11 specification.
> _c11 is correct and fully compliant with the C11 specification.
So far, I didn't say they are 'functionally incorrect'.
The problem is - we have two implementations for exactly the same thing
that generate different code-sequence for the same platform.
By default It is switched on/off depending on the platform
('off' - at arm/thunderx, ppc, x86, 'on' on other arms and riscv ).
So for some platforms _c11_ is probably never used (and less tested),
while on others _generic_ is not used and under tested.
Obviously it is not a good situation and better be addressed.
As I remember the reason while we ended up with 2 code-paths here -
on some platforms _c11_ one was slower.
Honnappa, please correct me if I am wrong here.
So ideal solution seems be - make _c11_ generate exactly the same
code as current _generic_, so we can deprecate and remove _generic_.
> Replacing atomic_load(cons.tail, acquire) with load(cons.tail, relaxed) in
> _c11 would make it non-compliant with C11 the spec.
Hmm... where this constraint comes from exactly?
AFAIK, inside DPDK, we have several places where we do use
'atomic_store(var, release);' in conjunction with 'var.atomic_load(relaxed);'
Again, if that really that strict - why in _c11_ move_head() it is ok to
use 'head.load(acquire)' in conjunction with 'head.cas(relaxed);'?
Following that logic, it should always be 'head.cas(release);', no?
