lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 03/12] ptr_ring: READ/WRITE_ONCE for __ptr_ring_empty
From
Date


On 2018年01月26日 10:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:37:58AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2018年01月26日 07:36, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> Lockless __ptr_ring_empty requires that consumer head is read and
>>> written at once, atomically. Annotate accordingly to make sure compiler
>>> does it correctly. Switch locked callers to __ptr_ring_peek which does
>>> not support the lockless operation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 11 ++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>>> index 8594c7b..9a72d8f 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
>>> @@ -196,7 +196,9 @@ static inline void *__ptr_ring_peek(struct ptr_ring *r)
>>> */
>>> static inline bool __ptr_ring_empty(struct ptr_ring *r)
>>> {
>>> - return !__ptr_ring_peek(r);
>>> + if (likely(r->size))
>>> + return !r->queue[READ_ONCE(r->consumer_head)];
>>> + return true;
>>> }
>> So after patch 8, __ptr_ring_peek() did:
>>
>> static inline void *__ptr_ring_peek(struct ptr_ring *r)
>> {
>>     if (likely(r->size))
>>         return READ_ONCE(r->queue[r->consumer_head]);
>>     return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> Looks like a duplication.
>>
>> Thanks
> Nope - they are different.
>
> The reason is that __ptr_ring_peek does not need to read the consumer_head once
> since callers have a lock,

I get this.

> and __ptr_ring_empty does not need to read
> the queue once since it merely compares it to 0.
>

Do this still work if it was called inside a loop?

Thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-26 04:21    [W:0.066 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site