Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] librte_eal: fix mcslock hang on weak memory
From: Phil Yang <hidden>
Date: 2020-08-26 10:17:28
Diogo Behrens [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Subject: [PATCH] librte_eal: fix mcslock hang on weak memory The initialization me->locked=1 in lock() must happen before next->locked=0 in unlock(), otherwise a thread may hang forever, waiting me->locked become 0. On weak memory systems (such as ARMv8), the current implementation allows me->locked=1 to be reordered with announcing the node (pred->next=me) and, consequently, to be reordered with next->locked=0 in unlock(). This fix adds a release barrier to pred->next=me, forcing me->locked=1 to happen before this operation. Signed-off-by: Diogo Behrens <redacted> --- lib/librte_eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.hb/lib/librte_eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h index 2bef28351..ce553f547 100644--- a/lib/librte_eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/generic/rte_mcslock.h@@ -68,7 +68,14 @@ rte_mcslock_lock(rte_mcslock_t **msl, rte_mcslock_t*me) */ return; } - __atomic_store_n(&prev->next, me, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); + /* The store to me->next above should also complete before the node is + * visible to predecessor thread releasing the lock. Hence, the store + * prev->next also requires release semantics. Note that, for example, + * on ARM, the release semantics in the exchange operation is not + * strong as a release fence and is not sufficient to enforce the + * desired order here.
Hi Diogo, I didn't quite understand why the exchange operation with ACQ_REL memory ordering is not sufficient. It emits 'stlxr' on armv8.0-a and 'swpal' on armv8.1-a (with LSE support). Both of these two instructions contain a release semantics. Please check the URL for the detail. https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/Mc4373 BTW, if you captured a deadlock issue on your testbed, could you please share your test case here? Thanks, Phil
+ */ + __atomic_store_n(&prev->next, me, __ATOMIC_RELEASE); /* The while-load of me->locked should not move above the previous * store to prev->next. Otherwise it will cause a deadlock. Need a -- 2.28.0