On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:14:09PM +0100, Björn Töpel wrote: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 19:44, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:50:23PM +0100, Björn Töpel wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 00:51, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/20/20 10:21 AM, Björn Töpel wrote: > > > > > From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Currently, the AF_XDP rings uses fences for the kernel-side > > > > > produce/consume functions. By updating rings for > > > > > load-acquire/store-release semantics, the full barrier (smp_mb()) on > > > > > the consumer side can be replaced. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > If I'm not missing something from the ring update scheme, don't you also need > > > > to adapt to STORE.rel ->producer with matching barrier in tools/lib/bpf/xsk.h ? > > > > > > > > > > Daniel/John, > > > > > > Hmm, I was under the impression that *wasn't* the case. Quoting > > > memory-barriers.txt: > > > > > > --8<-- > > > When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions, certain types of memory > > > barrier should always be paired. A lack of appropriate pairing is > > > almost certainly an error. > > > > > > General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair with most > > > other types of barriers, albeit without multicopy atomicity. An > > > acquire barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also pair > > > with other barriers, including of course general barriers. A write > > > barrier pairs with a data dependency barrier, a control dependency, an > > > acquire barrier, a release barrier, a read barrier, or a general > > > barrier. Similarly a read barrier, control dependency, or a data > > > dependency barrier pairs with a write barrier, an acquire barrier, a > > > release barrier, or a general barrier: > > > -->8-- > > > > The key part here is "albeit without multicopy atomicity". I don't think > > you care about that at all for these rings as you're very clearly passing a > > message from the producer side to the consumer side in a point-to-point like > > manner, so I think you're ok to change the kernel independently from > > userspace (but I would still recommend updating both eventually). > > > > The only thing you might run into is if anybody is relying on the smp_mb() > > in the consumer to order other unrelated stuff either side of the consume > > operation (or even another consume operation to a different ring!), but it > > looks like you can't rely on that in the xsk queue implementation anyway > > because you cache the global state and so the barriers are conditional. > > > > Thanks for getting back, and for the clarification! I'll do a respin > (as part of a another series) that include the userland changes. I'm just sorry it took me so long. I got tied up with personal stuff, then conferences and finally, when it got to the top of my list, I took some holiday. Will
