From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH] kni: fix kni rx fifo producer synchronization Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:22:57 +0530 Message-ID: <20180816065256.GA11266@jerin> References: <1533810233-7706-1-git-send-email-kkokkilagadda@caviumnetworks.com> <5debc6df-9bed-597a-03e2-510372b849e0@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kiran Kumar , dev@dpdk.org, Konstantin Ananyev , Bruce Richardson , Santosh Shukla To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03on0089.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.89]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5FAE235 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:09:06 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5debc6df-9bed-597a-03e2-510372b849e0@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" -----Original Message----- > Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 12:30:57 +0100 > From: Ferruh Yigit > To: Kiran Kumar > CC: dev@dpdk.org, Jerin Jacob , Konstantin > Ananyev , Bruce Richardson > , Santosh Shukla > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: fix kni rx fifo producer > synchronization > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/52.9.1 > > > On 8/9/2018 11:23 AM, Kiran Kumar wrote: > > With existing code in kni_fifo_put, rx_q values are not being updated > > before updating fifo_write. While reading rx_q in kni_net_rx_normal, > > This is causing the sync issue on other core. So adding a write > > barrier to make sure the values being synced before updating fifo_write. > > > > Fixes: 3fc5ca2f6352 ("kni: initial import") > > > > Signed-off-by: Kiran Kumar > > --- > > lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h b/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h > > index ac26a8c..4d6b33e 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h > > +++ b/lib/librte_kni/rte_kni_fifo.h > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ kni_fifo_put(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo, void **data, unsigned num) > > fifo->buffer[fifo_write] = data[i]; > > fifo_write = new_write; > > } > > + rte_smp_wmb(); > > fifo->write = fifo_write; > > return i; > > For Intel this is just a compiler barrier so no issue but not sure if a memory > barrier is required here, > > Related code block is: > > |- for (i = 0; i < num; i++) { > || new_write = (new_write + 1) & (fifo->len - 1); > || > || if (new_write == fifo_read) > || break; > || fifo->buffer[fifo_write] = data[i]; > || fifo_write = new_write; > || } > | fifo->write = fifo_write; > > "fifo_write" is updated in the loop, so there is a dependency to it for > "fifo->write". Can memory writes be reordered when there is a dependency? >>From CPU0 compiler instruction generation perspective, It will take care of the dependency. In weakly ordered machine, it does NOT grandees CPU1 sees fifo->write as final write. So, IMO, This patch make sense. We are able to reproduce the problem on arm64 machine with certain traffic. > > Cc'ed a few more people for comment.