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."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@huawei.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 6:54 AM
> To: Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage <wathsala.vithan...@arm.com>;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>;
> jer...@marvell.com; hemant.agra...@nxp.com; d...@linux.ibm.com; nd
> <n...@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.anan...@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
