Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH 7/7] Experiment: Add explicit memory barrier in free_completion()

["Ondřej Surý via lttng-dev" <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>]

> On 20. 3. 2023, at 19:37, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2023-03-17 17:37, Ondřej Surý via lttng-dev wrote:
>> FIXME: This is experiment that adds explicit memory barrier in the
>> free_completion in the workqueue.c, so ThreadSanitizer knows it's ok to
>> free the resources.
>> Signed-off-by: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
>> ---
>>  src/workqueue.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> diff --git a/src/workqueue.c b/src/workqueue.c
>> index 1039d72..f21907f 100644
>> --- a/src/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/src/workqueue.c
>> @@ -377,6 +377,7 @@ void free_completion(struct urcu_ref *ref)
>>   struct urcu_workqueue_completion *completion;
>>     completion = caa_container_of(ref, struct urcu_workqueue_completion, ref);
>> + assert(!urcu_ref_get_unless_zero(&completion->ref));
> 
> Perhaps what we really want here is an ANNOTATE_UNPUBLISH_MEMORY_RANGE() of some sort ?

I guess?

My experience with TSAN tells me, that you need some kind of memory barrier when using acquire-release
semantics and you do:

if (__atomic_sub_fetch(obj->ref, __ATOMIC_RELEASE) == 0) {
  /* __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE needed here */
   free(obj);
}

we end up using following code in BIND 9:

if (__atomic_sub_fetch(obj->ref, __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL) == 0) {
   free(obj);
}

So, I am guessing after the change of uatomic_sub_return() to __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL,
this patch should no longer be needed.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ondrej@sury.org

_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev