From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: fix atomic refcnt update
 synchronization
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 09:51:43 -0700
Message-ID: <20160902095143.117482f0@xeon-e3>
References: <1472793906-5699-1-git-send-email-slayercat.subscription@gmail.com>
 <20160902091236.57250d1a@xeon-e3>
 <CAK_yBkNMQHNG-bLci08HHiOSfcy5zAau6m19KJaVtBYNU_xhMg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Linzhe Lee <slayercat.subscription@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com (mail-pf0-f180.google.com
 [209.85.192.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C3A2931
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  2 Sep 2016 18:51:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pf0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p64so44059174pfb.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 09:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK_yBkNMQHNG-bLci08HHiOSfcy5zAau6m19KJaVtBYNU_xhMg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:31:50 +0800
Linzhe Lee <slayercat.subscription@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for reply, Stephen.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in x86-64, my cpu is `Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v3 @ 2.40GHz`.
> 
> 
> 
> When allocation mbuf in program1, and transfer it to program2 for free
> via ring, the program1 might meet assert in allocate mbuf sometimes.
> (`RTE_ASSERT(rte_mbuf_refcnt_read(m) == 0);`)
> 
> 
> 
> but when I using gdb to check it, the refcnt field of mbuf is already
> zero. so I believe the problem came from the cache line problem or
> incorrect optimization.
> 
> 
> 
> When apply this patch, the problem seems solved. I'm submitting it for
> your comments.

Are you sure you have REFCNT_ATOMIC set?