[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: call write barrier before used index update

[Nikita Kalyazin]

Hi,

> This has been discussed a number of times before on list, and the consensus
> seems to be that the correct way to fix this is to introduce a set of specific
> barrier operations that insert the correct barrier type on each architecture,
> i.e. compiler barriers on IA, and full wmbs on architectures that require that.
Linux kernel contains two sets of macros: *mb() and smp_*mb().  As far as
I understand, the former are meant to order memory accesses when interacting
with peripherals (physical NICs in our case), and the latter - to provide
synchronization between CPU cores (applicable for virtual NICs in our case).
smp_*mb() for Intel architecture would be a simple compiler barrier, whereas
for processors with weaker memory model they may use real barrier
instructions.
Maybe implementing barriers similar way would work in DPDK as well?

-- 

Best regards,

Nikita Kalyazin,
n.kalyazin at samsung.com

Software Engineer
Virtualization Group
Samsung R&D Institute Russia
Tel: +7 (495) 797-25-00 #3816
Tel: +7 (495) 797-25-03
Office #1501, 12-1, Dvintsev str.,
Moscow, 127018, Russia

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 03:29:51PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:07:46PM +0300, Nikita Kalyazin wrote:
> > Descriptors that have been put into the used vring must be observable by
> > guest earlier than the new used index value.
> > Although compiler barrier serves well for Intel architectue here, the
> > proper cross-platform solution is to use write barrier before the used
> > index is updated.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nikita Kalyazin <n.kalyazin at samsung.com>
> > ---
> Yes, but no! :-)
> 
> This has been discussed a number of times before on list, and the consensus
> seems to be that the correct way to fix this is to introduce a set of specific
> barrier operations that insert the correct barrier type on each architecture,
> i.e. compiler barriers on IA, and full wmbs on architectures that require that.
> 
> See discussion here: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/4293/
> and in the thread here: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/015202.html
> 
> So correct problem statment, but unfortunately NAK for the implementation.
> 
> Patches for general memory barrier implementation as described above welcome :-)
> 
> Regards,
> /Bruce