From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Christian Riesch <christian.riesch@omicron.at>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Fix unordered accesses to lockless read buffer
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:44:46 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54A9982E.7020309@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABkLObqhqE7Y3eD2gUxmqb0etfvYcDYRnE=-i=-4j=4Ea6=F-w@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/01/2015 06:00 AM, Christian Riesch wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Thank you for this patch! Unfortunately I had not much time for this
> since my last patch submission, so I am happy that someone continued
> this work.
>
> I have a few comments/questions, please see below.
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:
>> Add commit_head buffer index, which the producer-side publishes
>> after input processing. This ensures the consumer-side observes
>> correctly-ordered writes in raw mode
>
> I understand that the commit_head reduces the number of memory
> barriers and makes some things easier. But what is so special about
> raw mode that requires the introduction of commit_head?
commit_head is simply the read_head after each received buffer is
processed by the input worker. In this context, I meant 'raw mode' as
any non-canonical mode, ie., any mode in which copy_from_read_buf()
is used by the reader. I'll replace 'raw' with 'non-canonical' instead.
>> (ie., the buffer data is
>> written before the buffer index is advanced).
>>
>> Further, remove read_cnt() and expand inline, using ACCESS_ONCE()
>
> "ACCESS_ONCE() and memory barriers"?
This portion of the changelog refers only to read_cnt(), for which
memory barriers are not required.
But, while writing the explanatory fragment [1], I realized that
input_available_p() must load the most recent relevant head index
(either canon_head or commit_head based on the mode) because
it may conclude there is no more input _and_ then observe an end-of-file
condition. So I need to fix this up to do the smp_load_acquire() in
input_available_p() and ACCESS_ONCE() in the *_copy_from_read_buf().
Regards,
Peter Hurley
[1]
Strictly speaking, the ACCESS_ONCE()'s are optimizations. Neither the
producer nor consumer require the most recent 'opposed' index; if the
compiler elided the opposed index load, instead reusing an existing load
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-04 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-30 12:05 [PATCH] n_tty: Fix unordered accesses to lockless read buffer Peter Hurley
2015-01-01 11:00 ` Christian Riesch
2015-01-01 13:55 ` Christian Riesch
2015-01-01 14:06 ` Peter Hurley
2015-01-04 19:44 ` Peter Hurley [this message]
2015-01-09 19:09 ` Peter Hurley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54A9982E.7020309@hurleysoftware.com \
--to=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=christian.riesch@omicron.at \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).