Thx for pointing that out,
Totally ignore the existence of other barriers ;D
Let me address that,
Thanks,
Alex Wang,
On 29 August 2015 at 17:49, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On 29 August 2015 at 17:42, ALeX Wang <ee07b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 29 August 2015 at 16:45, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29 August 2015 at 15:24, Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Joe Stringer <
> joestrin...@nicira.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for working on this, Alex. I've considered implementing an
> >> >> approach like this before, but haven't had a strong reason to.
> >> >>
> >> >> On 29 August 2015 at 00:42, Alex Wang <ee07b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > This commit adds logic using ovs barrier to allow main thread pause
> >> >> > all revalidators. This new feature will be used in a later patch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Alex Wang <ee07b...@gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> > @@ -762,6 +791,11 @@ udpif_revalidator(void *arg)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > revalidator->id = ovsthread_id_self();
> >> >> > for (;;) {
> >> >> > + /* Pauses all revalidators if wanted. */
> >> >> > + if (latch_is_set(&udpif->pause_latch)) {
> >> >> > + revalidator_pause(revalidator);
> >> >> > + }
> >> >> > +
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there anything that ensures all revalidators are either before
> this
> >> >> statement, or after this statement, when the latch is modified?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think this should not matter, since the latch_wait() will cause
> >> > revalidator
> >> > waking up immediately... And latch has only two states (set or not),
> >> > unlike
> >> > the sequence number, so we do not need to worry about missing the
> >> > seq_change,
> >>
> >> What if the threads don't wake up due to latch_wait(), but due to
> >> another reason? Each revalidator thread individually checks the value
> >> at a different time from all the others, so without a critical section
> >> that ensures they all check the same value, I think it's possible for
> >> two revalidators to wake up (eg due to timer expiring), one checks the
> >> latch & skips the barrier, then main thread changes the latch, then
> >> the second revalidator checks the latch & blocks on the barrier.
> >
> >
> >
> > In that case, I think the first revalidator should proceed to
> > latch_wait(&udpif->pause_latch);
> > and wakes up immediately since the latch is set.
>
> In this case, one revalidator would wait on the pause_barrier, then
> another would process through and wait on a reval_barrier. No-one can
> continue, because the threads are waiting on different barriers.
>
--
Alex Wang,
Open vSwitch developer
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
