[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] ring: guarantee load/load order in enqueue and dequeue

[Jianbo Liu]

The 11/10/2017 08:16, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 01:51:09 +0000
> > From: Jia He <hejianet at gmail.com>
> > To: jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com, dev at dpdk.org, olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> > Cc: konstantin.ananyev at intel.com, bruce.richardson at intel.com,
> >  jianbo.liu at arm.com, hemant.agrawal at nxp.com, Jia He <hejianet at gmail.com>,
> >  Jia He <jia.he at hxt-semitech.com>, jie2.liu at hxt-semitech.com,
> >  bing.zhao at hxt-semitech.com
> > Subject: [PATCH v5 1/1] ring: guarantee load/load order in enqueue and
> >  dequeue
> > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4
> >
> > We watched a rte panic of mbuf_autotest in our qualcomm arm64 server.
>
> I think, the above text can be improved. Something like below.
>
>
> Fix for the rte_panic() in mbuf_autotest on qualcomm arm64 server(...SoC
> name...)
>
> Root cause:
> > In __rte_ring_move_cons_head()
> > ...
> >         do {
> >                 /* Restore n as it may change every loop */
> >                 n = max;
> >
> >                 *old_head = r->cons.head;                //1st load
> >                 const uint32_t prod_tail = r->prod.tail; //2nd load
> >
> > cpu1(producer)          cpu2(consumer)          cpu3(consumer)
> >                         load r->prod.tail
> > in enqueue:
> > load r->cons.tail
> > load r->prod.head
> >
> > store r->prod.tail
> >
> >                                                 load r->cons.head
> >                                                 load r->prod.tail
> >                                                 ...
> >                                                 store r->cons.{head,tail}
> >                         load r->cons.head
> >
> > In weak memory order architectures(powerpc,arm), the 2nd load might be
> > reodered before the 1st load, that makes *entries is bigger than we
> > wanted. This nasty reording messed enque/deque up. Then, r->cons.head
> > will be bigger than prod_tail, then make *entries very big and the
> > consumer will go forward incorrectly.
> >
> > After this patch, even with above context switches, the old cons.head
> > will be recaculated after failure of rte_atomic32_cmpset. So no race
> > conditions left.
> >
> > There is no such issue on X86, because X86 is strong memory order model.
> > But rte_smp_rmb() doesn't have impact on runtime performance on X86, so
> > keep the same code without architectures specific concerns.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jia He <jia.he at hxt-semitech.com>
> > Signed-off-by: jie2.liu at hxt-semitech.com
> > Signed-off-by: bing.zhao at hxt-semitech.com
>
> ➜ [master][dpdk.org] $ ./devtools/checkpatches.sh
>
> ### ring: guarantee load/load order in enqueue and dequeue
>
> WARNING:BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE: Block comments use a trailing */ on a
> separate line
> #58: FILE: lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h:414:
> +              * memory model. It is noop on x86 */
>
> WARNING:BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE: Block comments use a trailing */ on a
> separate line
> #70: FILE: lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.h:527:
> +              * memory model. It is noop on x86 */
>
> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 22 lines checked
>
> 0/1 valid patch
> ➜ [master][dpdk.org] $ ./devtools/check-git-log.sh
> Wrong tag:
>       Signed-off-by: jie2.liu at hxt-semitech.com
>       Signed-off-by: bing.zhao at hxt-semitech.com
>
>
> With above fixes:
> Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
>
>
>

Acked-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbo.liu at arm.com>

And add it to stable.
 Cc: stable at dpdk.org

--
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.