Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:37:45 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Request for review, time_pps_fetch() enhancement Message-ID: <20130210103745.GI2522@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20130209134706.GB19909@stack.nl> References: <1360125698.93359.566.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <20130206155830.GX2522@kib.kiev.ua> <20130209134706.GB19909@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--TMGYF+XY7wpHOFd9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:47:06PM +0100, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:58:30PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > I'd like feedback on the attached patch, which adds support to our
> > > time_pps_fetch() implementation for the blocking behaviors described =
in
> > > section 3.4.3 of RFC 2783. The existing implementation can only retu=
rn
> > > the most recently captured data without blocking. These changes add =
the
> > > ability to block (forever or with timeout) until a new event occurs.
>=20
> > > Index: sys/kern/kern_tc.c
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > > --- sys/kern/kern_tc.c (revision 246337)
> > > +++ sys/kern/kern_tc.c (working copy)
> > > @@ -1446,6 +1446,50 @@
> > > * RFC 2783 PPS-API implementation.
> > > */
> > > =20
> > > +static int
> > > +pps_fetch(struct pps_fetch_args *fapi, struct pps_state *pps)
> > > +{
> > > [snip]
> > > + aseq =3D pps->ppsinfo.assert_sequence;
> > > + cseq =3D pps->ppsinfo.clear_sequence;
> > > + while (aseq =3D=3D pps->ppsinfo.assert_sequence &&
> > > + cseq =3D=3D pps->ppsinfo.clear_sequence) {
> > Note that compilers are allowed to optimize these accesses even over
> > the sequential point, which is the tsleep() call. Only accesses to
> > volatile objects are forbidden to be rearranged.
>=20
> > I suggest to add volatile casts to pps in the loop condition.
>=20
> The memory pointed to by pps is global (other code may have a pointer to
> it); therefore, the compiler must assume that the tsleep() call (which
> invokes code in a different compilation unit) may modify it.
>=20
> Because volatile does not make concurrent access by multiple threads
> defined either, adding it here only seems to slow down the code
> (potentially).
The volatile guarantees that the compiler indeed reloads the value on
read access. Conceptually, the tsleep() does not modify or even access
the checked fields, and compiler is allowed to note this by whatever
methods (LTO ?).
More, the standard says that an implementation is allowed to not evaluate
part of the expression if no side effects are produced, even by calling
a function.
I agree that for practical means, the _currently_ used compilers should
consider the tsleep() call as the sequential point. But then the volatile
qualifier cast applied for the given access would not change the code as
well.
>=20
> > > + err =3D tsleep(pps, PCATCH, "ppsfch", timo);
> > > + if (err =3D=3D EWOULDBLOCK && fapi->timeout.tv_sec =3D=3D -1) {
> > > + continue;
> > > + } else if (err !=3D 0) {
> > > + return (err);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + }
> --=20
> Jilles Tjoelker
--TMGYF+XY7wpHOFd9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)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=+kNV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--TMGYF+XY7wpHOFd9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130210103745.GI2522>