svn commit: r184759 - user/kmacy/HEAD_fast_multi_xmit/sys/net

[John Baldwin]

On Saturday 08 November 2008 11:53:53 am Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2008/11/8, David Schultz <das at freebsd.org>:
> > On Sat, Nov 08, 2008, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >  > Definitively, I'm not sure we need this.
> >  > We alredy have memory barriers you could exploit which just require a
> >  > "dummy" object.
> >  >
> >  > For example you could do:
> >  > flowtable_pcpu_unlock(struct flowtable *table, uint32_t hash)
> >  >  {
> >  >
> >  >         (void)atomic_load_acq_ptr(&dummy);
> >  >         ...
> >
> >
> > Memory barriers are cheaper than atomic ops.
> 
> But this is an atomic op too.
> 
> >  Furthermore, there's different types of memory barriers
> >  (store/store, load/store, etc.), not just a generic mb().  Some
> >  architectures like sparc64 define all four, but only actually
> >  implement the varieties that are useful in improving performance.
> >  Take a look at what Solaris has here.
> >
> >  I'm skeptical of trying to play clever tricks with these things
> >  outside of the code that implements synchronization
> >  primitives. Memory ordering is very hard to reason about, and we
> >  already have a lot of code, e.g., in libthr, that isn't correct
> >  under weak memory ordering. Moreover, the compiler can reorder
> >  loads and stores, and that just adds a whole new level of pain.
> 
> _acq prefix is intended to not let reordering happening really.
> man 9 atomic can explain how the acq and rel memory barriers work.

_acq is not a full barrier, it's more of an 'lfence'.  The mb() here is doing 
more of a _rel barrier ('sfence', etc.).

-- 
John Baldwin