Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 22/03/2024 02:38, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Paul,
>>
>> Can you help us on WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() usage as follows?
>> For some example kernel code as follows,
>>
>> "
>> unsigned char x[16];
>>
>> void writer(void)
>> {
>> memset(x, 1, sizeof(x));
>> /* To make memset() take effect ASAP */
>> barrier();
>> }
>>
>> unsigned char reader(int n)
>> {
>> return READ_ONCE(x[n]);
>> }
>> "
>>
>> where, writer() and reader() may be called on 2 CPUs without any lock.
>
> For the situation we are discussing, writer() is always called with a spin lock
> held. So spin_unlock() will act as the barrier in this case; that's my argument
> for not needing the explicit barrier(), anyway. Happy to be told I'm wrong.
Yes. spin_unlock() is a barrier too. There are some operations between
writer() and spin_unlock(), so I want to check whether it make any sense
to add a barrier earlier.
>> It's acceptable for reader() to read the written value a little later.
>> Our questions are,
>>
>> 1. because it's impossible for accessing "unsigned char" to cause
>> tearing. So, WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() isn't necessary for
>> correctness, right?
>>
>> 2. we use barrier() and READ_ONCE() in writer() and reader(), because we
>> want to make writing take effect ASAP. Is it a good practice? Or it's
>> a micro-optimization that should be avoided?
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
