"Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 10/31/2013
08:40:15 AM:
> > void ubuf_read(void)
> > {
> > u64 head, tail;
> >
> > tail = ACCESS_ONCE(ubuf->tail);
> > head = ACCESS_ONCE(ubuf->head);
> >
> > /*
> > * Ensure we read the buffer boundaries before the actual buffer
> > * data...
> > */
> > smp_rmb(); /* C, matches with B */
> >
> > while (tail != head) {
> > obj = ubuf->data + tail;
> > /* process obj */
> > tail += obj->size;
> > tail %= ubuf->size;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > * Ensure all data reads are complete before we issue the
> > * ubuf->tail update; once that update hits, kbuf_write() can
> > * observe and overwrite data.
> > */
> > smp_mb(); /* D, matches with A */
> >
> > ubuf->tail = tail;
> > }
> > Could we replace A and C with an smp_read_barrier_depends()?
>
> C, yes, given that you have ACCESS_ONCE() on the fetch from ->tail
> and that the value fetch from ->tail feeds into the address used for
> the "obj =" assignment.
No! You must to have a full smp_rmb() at C. The race on the reader side
is not between fetch of @tail and read from address pointed by @tail.
The real race here is between a fetch of @head and read of obj from
memory pointed by @tail.
Regards,
-- Victor
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
