On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 20:37:06 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/09/2016 20:06, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 16:51:38 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> > ThreadSanitizer detects a possible race between reading/writing the
> >> > hashes. As ordering semantics are already documented for qht we just
> >> > need to ensure a race can't tear the hash value so we can use the
> >> > relaxed atomic_set/read functions.
> > This was discussed here:
> > 
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-05/msg03658.html
> > 
> > To reiterate: reading torn hash values is fine, since the retry will
> > happen regardless (and all pointers[] remain valid through the RCU
> > read-critical section).
> 
> True, but C11 says data races are undefined, not merely unspecified.
> seqlock-protected data requires a relaxed read and write, because they
> are read concurrently in the read and write sides.

Ah I see.

Let me then just point out that this comes at a small perf loss.

Running 'taskset -c 0 tests/qht-bench -n 1 -d 10' (i.e. all lookups) 10 times,
we get:

before the patch:
 $ ./mean.pl 34.04 34.24 34.38 34.25 34.18 34.51 34.46 34.44 34.29 34.08
 34.287 +- 0.160072900059109
after:
 $ ./mean.pl 33.94 34.00 33.52 33.46 33.55 33.71 34.27 34.06 34.28 34.58
 33.937 +- 0.374731014640279

But hey we can live with that.

Cheers,

                E.

Reply via email to