Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:30:39 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 265974] SMR has several missing barriers
Message-ID:  <bug-265974-227-TfyZYucReo@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-265974-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-265974-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D265974

--- Comment #9 from Pierre Habouzit <pierre@habouzit.net> ---
`atomic_thread_fence_rel()` is a `dmb sy` ? I would have expected that to b=
e a
`dmb st` ..

but indeed it shows I'm not familiar with with FreeBSD:

```C
static __inline void
atomic_thread_fence_rel(void)
{

        dmb(sy);
}
```

and indeed it makes the deferred advance correct then.

It also means smr_synchronize() has a stronger semantics than I expected
already and makes the smr_poll barrier on entry useless because the
`atomic_load_acq_int()` in smr_poll() already give the semantics I was afte=
r on
entry.

I think you might be right that the one on exit of smr_poll() isn't quite
needed. I think I just didn't think it through and just took
`ck_epoch_synchronize_wait` as an example and just was like "it needs one so
smr_scan does too" but trying to come up with a reason why it breaks yields
nothing..

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-265974-227-TfyZYucReo>