Quoting Dixit, Ashutosh (2020-03-30 16:55:32) > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 03:09:20 -0700, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2020-03-30 10:14:11) > > > Reading or writing those fields should only happen under > > > stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock. > > > > Writing, yes. Reading as a pair, sure. There are other ways you can > > ensure that the tail/head are read as one, but fair enough. > > Sorry but I am trying to understand exactly what the purpose of > stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock is? This is a classic ring buffer producer > consumer situation where producer updates tail and consumer updates > head. Since both are u32's can't those operations be done without requiring > a lock? > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock, flags); > > > > > > - return OA_TAKEN(stream->oa_buffer.tail - gtt_offset, > > > - stream->oa_buffer.head - gtt_offset) >= report_size; > > > + return pollin; > > In what way is the original code incorrect? As I mentioned head is u32 and > can be read atomically without requiring a lock? We had deliberately moved > this code outside the lock so as to pick up the the latest value of head if > it had been updated in the consumer (read). It's the pair of reads here. What's the synchronisation between the read of tail/head with the update? There's no sync between the reads so order is not determined here. So we may see the head updated for an old tail, and so think we have plenty to report, when in fact there's none (or someother convolution). Normal ringbuffer is to sample the head/tail pointers, smp_rmb(), then consume the data between head/tail (with the write doing the smp_wmb() after updating the data and before moving the tail). [So the normal usage of barriers is around access to one of tail/head (the other is under your control) and the shared contents.] -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
