Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:11:51 GMT From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: kern/160992: buf_ring(9) statistics accounting not MPSAFE Message-ID: <201109242011.p8OKBpfo069058@red.freebsd.org> Resent-Message-ID: <201109242020.p8OKKAsL064190@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 160992 >Category: kern >Synopsis: buf_ring(9) statistics accounting not MPSAFE >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: medium >Responsible: freebsd-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Sat Sep 24 20:20:10 UTC 2011 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Arnaud Lacombe >Release: 9-CURRENT >Organization: n/a >Environment: >Description: The following block of code, in `sys/sys/buf_ring.h': /* * If there are other enqueues in progress * that preceeded us, we need to wait for them * to complete */ while (br->br_prod_tail != prod_head) cpu_spinwait(); br->br_prod_bufs++; br->br_prod_bytes += nbytes; br->br_prod_tail = prod_next; critical_exit(); can be seen at runtime, memory-wise as: while (br->br_prod_tail != prod_head) cpu_spinwait(); br->br_prod_tail = prod_next; br->br_prod_bufs++; br->br_prod_bytes += nbytes; critical_exit(); That is, there is no memory barrier to enforce completion of the load/increment/store/load/load/addition/store operations before updating what other thread spin on. Even if `br_prod_tail' is marked `volatile', there is no guarantee that it will not be re-ordered wrt. non-volatile write (to `br_prod_bufs' and `br_prod_bytes'). Confirmed by Kip Macy (kmacy@) in http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-September/036454.html. >How-To-Repeat: code review. >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201109242011.p8OKBpfo069058>