On 04/04 14:11:45, Bill Fischofer wrote:
> This part has already been merged into the repo and should be removed
> from this series as it cannot be applied since it's already part of
> api-next.

Right, but it can only be dropped once that patch has made its way into
api-next. Until then I have to keep it in the patch series for testing
purposes.

> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Brian Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Brooks <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  platform/linux-generic/pktio/ring.c | 30 ++++++++++++++----------------
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/platform/linux-generic/pktio/ring.c 
> > b/platform/linux-generic/pktio/ring.c
> > index aeda04b2..e3c73d1c 100644
> > --- a/platform/linux-generic/pktio/ring.c
> > +++ b/platform/linux-generic/pktio/ring.c
> > @@ -263,8 +263,8 @@ int ___ring_mp_do_enqueue(_ring_t *r, void * const 
> > *obj_table,
> >                 /* Reset n to the initial burst count */
> >                 n = max;
> >
> > -               prod_head = r->prod.head;
> > -               cons_tail = r->cons.tail;
> > +               prod_head = __atomic_load_n(&r->prod.head, 
> > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > +               cons_tail = __atomic_load_n(&r->cons.tail, 
> > __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> >                 /* The subtraction is done between two unsigned 32bits value
> >                  * (the result is always modulo 32 bits even if we have
> >                  * prod_head > cons_tail). So 'free_entries' is always 
> > between 0
> > @@ -306,12 +306,12 @@ int ___ring_mp_do_enqueue(_ring_t *r, void * const 
> > *obj_table,
> >          * If there are other enqueues in progress that preceded us,
> >          * we need to wait for them to complete
> >          */
> > -       while (odp_unlikely(r->prod.tail != prod_head))
> > +       while (odp_unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&r->prod.tail, 
> > __ATOMIC_RELAXED) !=
> > +                           prod_head))
> >                 odp_cpu_pause();
> >
> >         /* Release our entries and the memory they refer to */
> > -       __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > -       r->prod.tail = prod_next;
> > +       __atomic_store_n(&r->prod.tail, prod_next, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ int ___ring_sp_do_enqueue(_ring_t *r, void * const 
> > *obj_table,
> >         int ret;
> >
> >         prod_head = r->prod.head;
> > -       cons_tail = r->cons.tail;
> > +       cons_tail = __atomic_load_n(&r->cons.tail, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> >         /* The subtraction is done between two unsigned 32bits value
> >          * (the result is always modulo 32 bits even if we have
> >          * prod_head > cons_tail). So 'free_entries' is always between 0
> > @@ -361,8 +361,7 @@ int ___ring_sp_do_enqueue(_ring_t *r, void * const 
> > *obj_table,
> >         }
> >
> >         /* Release our entries and the memory they refer to */
> > -       __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > -       r->prod.tail = prod_next;
> > +       __atomic_store_n(&r->prod.tail, prod_next, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -385,8 +384,8 @@ int ___ring_mc_do_dequeue(_ring_t *r, void **obj_table,
> >                 /* Restore n as it may change every loop */
> >                 n = max;
> >
> > -               cons_head = r->cons.head;
> > -               prod_tail = r->prod.tail;
> > +               cons_head = __atomic_load_n(&r->cons.head, 
> > __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
> > +               prod_tail = __atomic_load_n(&r->prod.tail, 
> > __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> >                 /* The subtraction is done between two unsigned 32bits value
> >                  * (the result is always modulo 32 bits even if we have
> >                  * cons_head > prod_tail). So 'entries' is always between 0
> > @@ -419,12 +418,12 @@ int ___ring_mc_do_dequeue(_ring_t *r, void 
> > **obj_table,
> >          * If there are other dequeues in progress that preceded us,
> >          * we need to wait for them to complete
> >          */
> > -       while (odp_unlikely(r->cons.tail != cons_head))
> > +       while (odp_unlikely(__atomic_load_n(&r->cons.tail, 
> > __ATOMIC_RELAXED) !=
> > +                                           cons_head))
> >                 odp_cpu_pause();
> >
> >         /* Release our entries and the memory they refer to */
> > -       __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> > -       r->cons.tail = cons_next;
> > +       __atomic_store_n(&r->cons.tail, cons_next, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> >
> >         return behavior == _RING_QUEUE_FIXED ? 0 : n;
> >  }
> > @@ -441,7 +440,7 @@ int ___ring_sc_do_dequeue(_ring_t *r, void **obj_table,
> >         uint32_t mask = r->prod.mask;
> >
> >         cons_head = r->cons.head;
> > -       prod_tail = r->prod.tail;
> > +       prod_tail = __atomic_load_n(&r->prod.tail, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> >         /* The subtraction is done between two unsigned 32bits value
> >          * (the result is always modulo 32 bits even if we have
> >          * cons_head > prod_tail). So 'entries' is always between 0
> > @@ -461,11 +460,10 @@ int ___ring_sc_do_dequeue(_ring_t *r, void 
> > **obj_table,
> >         r->cons.head = cons_next;
> >
> >         /* Acquire the pointers and the memory they refer to */
> > -       __atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> >         /* copy in table */
> >         DEQUEUE_PTRS();
> >
> > -       r->cons.tail = cons_next;
> > +       __atomic_store_n(&r->cons.tail, cons_next, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
> >         return behavior == _RING_QUEUE_FIXED ? 0 : n;
> >  }
> >
> > --
> > 2.12.2
> >

Reply via email to